,cfe<^
1504
JItliaca. S^rui ^atk
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE
LIBRARY
R-of- WA- HafmcnOuJ
' Cornell University Library
/.f>/i J/* NO 50.V28 1904
3 1924 015 249 968
Date Due
i.S»^-^
~-r^ - •"
-IS^^
HF'^ T
; V'Wni-
r-j^ilJ^
J^^
-.»_,
-^'=**— -.
PRINTED IN
U. S. A,
(Wy
NO. 23233
■''"'•'iu^-f'
COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART
EDITED BV
JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D.
HISTORY OF PAINTING
lOHN C. VAN DYKE,
COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART
EDITED BV
JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D.
Professor of the History of Art in Rl'Tgers
College
HISTORY OF PAINTING
By John C. Van Dyke, the Editor of the Series. With
Frontispiece and no Illustrations, Bibliog^raphies, and
Index. Crown 8vo, $1-50.
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
By Alfred D. F. Hamlin, A.M., Adjunct Professor of
Architecture, Columbia Colleg-e, New York. With
Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations and Diagrams, Bibli-
ographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a Genera?
Index. Crown 8vo, $^2.00,
HISTORY OF SCULPTURE
By Allan Marquand, Ph.D., L.H.D., and Arthur L.
Frothingham, Jr., Ph.D., Professors of Archaeology
and the History of Art in Princeton University. With
FroBtispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1.50.
Velasquez. Head of JEsop. Madrid.
A riLX r-BooK
OF iHIC
HISTORY OF PAINTING
JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D
PROKKSSOR n|- THI-: mSTOR\- Ol- ARl IN lU'TGERS C01-l-l-:r.P:, AND AUTHOR OF
"art for art's sake," "IME MEANING OF PICTURES," ETC.
SEVENTH EDITION
N I-: W Y O R K
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON AND BOMBAY
1904
1 ". r II
iii:i\' I 1;:. i I V
I L l;AKY
Av'cJ-
/Ai
CorVRIGHT, 1894, BV
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO,
Ai^ rights reserved.
First Edition, October, 1894.
Reprinted, March, 1895, and November, 1896, revised.
November, 1897, and November, 1S9S,
November, i8qg, and October, 1901.
December, 1902, and April, 1904.
Press of J. J. Eittle & Co.
Aster Place, New York
,1.1 1 1^1 ii 11 :)
PREFACE.
The object of this series of text-books is to provide
concise teachable histories of art for class-room use in
schools and colleges. The limited time given to the study
of art in the average educational institution has not only
dictated the condensed style of the volumes, but has lim-
ited their scope of matter to the general features of art
history. Arch3eological discussions on special subjects and
aesthetic theories have been avoided. The main facts of
history as settled by the best authorities are given. If the
reader choose to enter into particulars the bibliography
cited at the head of each chapter will be found helpful.
Illustrations have been introduced as sight-help to the text,
and, to avoid repetition, abbreviations have been used
wherever practicable. The enumeration of the principal
extant works of an artist, school, or period, and where they
may be found, which follows each chapter, may be service-
able not only as a summary of individual or school achieve-
ment, but for reference by travelling students in Europe.
This volume on painting, the first of the series, omits
mention of such work in Arabic, Indian, Chinese, and Per-
sian art as may come properly under the head of Ornament
Vlll PREFACE.
— a subject proposed for separate treatment hereafter. In
treating of individual painters it has been thought best to
give a short critical estimate of the man and his rank
among the painters of his time rather than the detailed
facts of his life. Students who wish accounts of the lives
of the painters should use Vasari, Larousse, and the Eiicy-
clopcedia Britaimica in connection with this text-book.
Acknowledgments are made to the respective publishers
of Woltmann and Woermann's History of Painting, and
the fine series of art histories by Perrot and Chipiez, for
permission to reproduce some few illustrations from these
publications.
John C. Van Dyke.
RuTGEKS College, 1894.
'I'AHLK OF C0NT]<:NTS.
rA(;n
I.isr oi- I iirsiK A iiKxs ...,..., xi
llFXFKAl r.lin I'lCK AI'IIY ........ XV
iNTRHIU'ri iiiN xvii
CHAPTER I.
ECYPTIAN PAINIIN'r, ......... I
CHAPTER H.
CiiAi.ii.Eii-A=isYRiAN, Persian, Piia;NiciAN, Cyi'Riote, and Asia
Ml.NUR P.VINTI.NG ......... 10
CHAPTER HI.
Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Painting ..... 21
CHAPTER IV.
TiALiAN Painting — Early' Christian and Medi.^val Period,
200-1250 .......... 36
CPIAPTER V.
Italian Painting — Gothic Period, 1250-1400 .... 47
CHAPTER VI.
Italian Painting — Early Renaissance, 1400-1500 ... 57
CHAPTER VII.
Italian Painting — Early Renaissance, 1400-1500, Continued. 73
CHAPTER VIII.
Italian Painting — High Renaissance, 1500-1600 . . .86
X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IX. PAGE
Italian Painting — High Renaissance, i 500-1600, ContinucJ . 99
CHAPTER X.
Italian Painting — High Renaissance, 1500-1600, Continued . no
CHAPTER XI.
Italian Painting — The Decadence and Modern Work, 1600-
1S94 122
CHAPTER XII.
French Painting — Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth
Centuries 132
CHAPTER XIII.
French Painting — Nineteenth Century . . . -143
CHAPTER XIV.
French Painting — Nineteenth Century, Confimicd . . 156
CHAPTER XV.
Spanish Painting ... ..... 172
CHAPTER XVI.
Flemish Painting 186
CHAPTER .XVII.
Dutch Painting 203
CHAPTER XVIII.
German Painting ......... 223
CHAPTER XIX.
British Painting 241
CHAPTER XX.
American Painting ......... 260
Postscript 276
Index 279
T.IST Ol' ll.l.US'l'RATIONS.
\\'l.i>Miuc/, Head of .l''.sop, Madrid
lu'oiitispii'cr
lluiUini;- ill tlie Marslu'S, 'I'omb of 'l"i, Saccarali
Tortrail of < Hiceii Taia ....
(."ilTcriiii^s to tlic Head. Wall painting;
\'i;.^nctte oK\ l'ap\'rus ....
Knamellctl r.rick, Niniroiul
Khorsabad .
Wild ,\ss. r.as-rciief ....
Lions Frieze. Susa .....
raintcd Head from Edessa
Cypriote \'ase Decoration
-Vttic Grave I'aintinj^ ....
Muse of Cortona .....
Odyssey Landscape .....
.\niphore, Lower Italy ....
Ritual Scene, I'alatine Wall paintinjj
J'<irtrait, I''a\'ouni, ( iraf Collection
Chamber in Catacornlts, with wall decorations
(_'ataconili Fresco, S. (.'ecilia
Christ as (jooii Shepherd, lva\'enna mosaic
Christ and Saints, fresco, S. ( lenerosa
Ezekiel before the Lortl. MS. illumination
Giotto, l'"light into Egypt, Arena Chap.
Orcagna, Paradise (detail), S. M. Novella
Lorenzetti, Peace (detail), Sienna
2
4
6
8
1 1
12
14
i6
i8
1')
23
26
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
49
51
53
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
25 Kra Angelico, Angel, Uflizi .
26 Fra Filippo, Madonna, Ulfizi .
27 Botticelli, Coronation of Madonna, Uflizi
28 Ghirlandajo, Visitation, Louvre
2g Francesca, Duke of Urbino, Uftizi .
30 Signorelli, The Curse (detail), Orvieto
31 Perugino, Madonna, Saints, and Angels, Louvre
32 School of Francia, Madonna, Louvre
33 Mantegna, Gonzaga Family Group, Mantua
34 B. Vivarini, Madonna and Child, Turin .
35 Giovanni Bellini, Madonna, Venice Acad.
36 Carpaccio, Presentation (detail), Venice Acad
37 iVntonello da Messina, Unknown Man, Louvre
3S Fra Bartolommeo, Descent from Cross, Pitti
39 Andrea del Sarto, Madonna of St. Francis, Uflizi
40 Michael Angelo, Athlete, Sistine Chap., Rome
41 Raphael, La Belle Jardiniere, Louvre
42 Giulio Romano, Apollo and Muses, Pitti .
43 Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, Louvre .
44 I^uini, Daughter of Herodias, Ufifizi
45 Sodoma, Ecstasy of St. Catherine, Sienna
46 Correggio, Marriage of St. Catherine, Louvre
47 Giorgione, Ordeal of Moses, Uffizi .
48 Titian, Venus Equipping Cupid, Borghesc, Rome
49 Tintoretto, Mercury and Graces, Ducal Pal., Venice
50 Veronese, Venice Enthroned, Ducal Pal., Venice
51 Lotto, Three Ages, Pitti ....
52 Eronzino, Christ in Limbo, Uffizi
53 Baroccio, Annunciation .....
54 Annibale Caracci, Entombment of Christ, Louvre
55 Caravaggio, The Card Players, Dresden .
56 Poussin, Et in Arcadia Ego, Louvre
57 Claude Lorrain, Flight into Egypt, Dresden
58 Watteau, Gilles, Louvre . . .
PAGE
55
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
74
76
78
80
83
87
89
91
93
96
100
102
104
1 06
III
113
115
"7
119
123
125
127
I2g
133
135
137
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
5g Boucher, Pastoral, l.ouvrc ....
()0 l)a\'id. The Sabines, Lountc ....
()I Irii^Tcs, Oulipus antl Sphinx, l.ouvrc
02 Delacroix. Massacre ol' Scio, Louvre
03 Oerome, Tollice \'erso .....
(14 Corot, Liuulscape ......
05 Rousseau, Charcoal Burner's Hut, Fuller Collection
06 Millet, The Gleaners, Louvre ....
07 Cabanel, I'ha-dra ......
63 Meissonier, Napoleon in 1814 ....
69 Sanchez-Coello, Daughter of Philip IL, Madrid
70 .Murillo, St. Anthony of Padua, Dresden .
71 Ribera, St. Agnes, Dresden ....
72 Fortuny, Spanish Marriage ....
73 Madrazo, Unmasked .....
74 Van Eycks, St. Bavon Altar-piece, Berlin
75 Memling (?), St. Lawrence, Nat. Gal.. Lon.
76 Massys, Head of \"irgin, Antwerp .
77 Rubens, Portrait of Young Woman .
7S Van Dyck, Portrait of Cornelius van der t'.eest .
79 Teniers the Younger, Prodigal Son, Louvre
So Alfred Stevens, On the Beacli ....
Si Hals, P^ortrait of a Lady ....
82 Rembrandt, Head of a Woman, Nat. Gal., Lon.
S3 Ruisdael, Landscape .....
84 Hobbema, The Water Wheel, Amsterdam Mus.
85 Israels, Alone in the World ....
86 Mauve, Sheep ......
87 Lochner, Sts. John, Catharine, Matthew, London
88 Wolgemut, Crucifixion, Munich
89 Diirer, Praying Virgin, Augsburg
90 Holbein, Portrait, Hague Mus.
91 Piloty, Wise and Foolish Virgins
92 Leibl, In Church ......
XUl
fAOlI
144
14'.
148
151
157
i6u
163
1 66
169
173
175
17s
181
184
187
189
191
193
195
197
200
205
208
2U
214
217
220
224
226
228
230
232
235
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
93 Menzel, A Reader ......
94 Hogarth, Shortly after Marriage, Nat. Gal., Lon.
95 Reynolds, Countess Spencer and Lord Althorp
96 Gainsborough, Blue Boy
97 Constable, Corn Field, Nat. Gal., Lon.
9S Turner, Fighting Temeraire, Nat. CJal. , Lon.
99 Burne- Jones, Flamma Vestalis .
100 Leighton, Helen of Troy .
loi Watts, Love and Death ....
102 West, Peter Denying Christ, Hampton Court
103 Gilbert Stuart. Washington, Boston Mus.
104 Hunt, Lute Player .....
105 Eastman Johnson, Churning
106 Inness, Landscape ....
107 Winslow Homer, Undertow
loS Whistler, The White Girl
109 Sargent, " Carnation Lily, Lily Rose "
no Chase, Alice, Art Institute, Chicago
PAGE
238
242
244
246
248
250
2C2
258
261
262
263
265
267
269
271
272
274
GENERAL BIRLIOORAPHY.
(This iiichules the leatling accessible works that treat
of iKuntiiig in general. For works on special periods or
schools, see the bibhographical references at the head of
each chai)ter. For bibliography of iiulividual painters con-
sult, under proper names, Champlin and Perkins's Cvcio-
pc\/ia, as given below.)
Champlin and Perkins, Cyclopedia of I'lii/iters and Paint-
ings, New York.
Adeline, Lcxique des TeDues d' Art.
Gazette des Beaux Arts, Paris.
Larousse, Grand Dietionnaire Univcrsel, Paris.
Li Art, Rei'ue liebdoniadaire illiistree, Paris.
Bryan, Dictionary of Painters. Ne-(i> edition.
Brockhaus, Conve rsat ions- Lex i/ion.
-Mever, Allgenieiiies Kiinstier-Lexiicon, fierlin.
Muther, History of Modern Painting.
Agincourt, Llistorv of Art />v its Monnnients.
Bayet, Precis d'Histoire de i'Art.
Blanc, Llistoire des Peintres de toutes les Eeoles.
Eastlake, Materials for a LListory of Oil Painting.
Liibke, History of Art, trans, ly Clarence Cook.
Reber, History of Ancient Art.
Reber, History of Mediaeval Art.
Schnasse, Geschiclite der Bildenden Kimste.
Girard, La Peinture Antique.
Viardot, History of the Painters of all Schools.
WiUiamson (Ed.), Handbooks of Great Masters.
Woltmann and Woermann, History of Painting.
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
INTRODUCTION.
The origin of painting is unknown. The first important
records of this art are met witli in Egypt ; but before the
Egyptian civilization the men of the early ages probably
used color in ornamentation and decoration, and they cer-
tainly scratched the outlines of men and animals upon bone
antl slate. Traces of this rude primitive work stiii remain
to us on the pottery, weapons, and stone implements of the
cave-dwellers. But while indicating the awakening of in-
telligence in early man, they can be reckoned with as art
oniv in a slight archaeological way. They show inclination
rather than accomplishment — a wish to ornament or to
represent, with only a crude knowledge of how to go
about it.
I'he first aim of this primitive painting was undoubtedly
decoration — the using of colored forms for color and form
only, as shown in the pottery designs or cross-hatchings on
stone knives or spear-heads. The second, and perhaps
later aim, was by imitating the shapes and colors of men,
animals, and the like, to convey an idea of the proportions
and characters of such things. An outline of a cave-bear
or a mammoth was perhaps the cave-dweller's way of telling
his fellows what monsters he had slain. We may assume
that it was pictorial record, primitive picture-written his-
tory. This early method of conveying an idea is, in intent,
XVIU INTRODUCTION.
substantially the same as the later hieroglyphic writing and
historical painting of the Egyptians. The difference be-
tween them is merely one of development. Thus there is
an indication in the art of Primitive Man of the two great
departments of painting e.xistent to-day.
1. Decorative Painting.
2. Expressive Painting.
Pure Decorative Painting is not usually expressive of ideas
other than those of rhythmical line and harmonious color.
It is not our subject. This volume treats of Expressive
Painting ; but in dealing with that it should be borne in
mind that Expressive Painting has always a more or less
decorative effect accompanying it, and that must be spoken
of incidentally. We shall presently see the intermingling
of both kinds of painting in the art of ancient Egypt — our
first inquiry.
CHAPTER I.
EGYPTIAN PAINTING.
Books Recommeniikd : Brugsch, History of Egypt under
tlu- Pharaohs ; Budge, Dwellers on the Ni/e; Duncker, His-
tory of Antiquity ; Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs j El)-,
Manual of Archieology ; Jxpsius, Denkmiiler aus Aegypten
und Aethiopen ; Maspero, Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria ;
iMaspero, Guide du Visiteur au Mus'ee de Boulaij ; Maspero,
Egyptian Archeeology ; Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in
Ancient Egypt; ^^'ilkinson, Manners and Customs of the An-
cient Egyptians.
LAND AND PEOPLE: Egypt, as Herodotus has said, is "the
gift of the Nile," one uf the latest of the earth's geo-
logical formations, and yet one of the earliest countries to
be settled and dominated by man. It consists now, as in
the ancient days, of the valley of the Nile, bounded on
the cast by the Arabian mountains and on the west by the
Libyan desert. Well-watered and fertile, it was doubtless
at llrst a pastoral and agricultural country ; then, by its
riverine traffic, a commercial country, and finally, by con-
(juest, a land enriched with the spoils of warfare.
Its earliest records show a strongly established monarchy.
Dynasties of kings called Pharaohs succeeded one another
by birth or conquest. The king made the laws, judged the
people, declared war, and was monarch supreme. Next to
him in rank came the priests, who were not only in the
service of religion but in that of the state, as counsellors,
secretaries, and the like. The common people, with true
1
2 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Oriental lack of individuality, depending blindly on leaders,
were little more than the servants of the upper classes.
The Egyptian religion existing in the earliest days was
a worship of the personified elements of nature. Each
FIG. I. — Hl'NTINC [N TFTR MARSHRS. TOMB OF JI. SACC\RAH.
(from I'ERROi' AND CHir'IEZ.)
element had its particular controlling god, worshipped as
such. Later on in Egyptian history the number of gods
was increased, and each city had its trinity of godlike pro-
tectors symbolized by the propylsa of the temples. Future
life was a certainty, provided that the Ka, or spirit, did not
fall a prey to Typhon, the God of Evil, during the long wait
y-A'.Nl'TIAN I'AINTINC;. 3
ill the toiiih f<i|- thr iuilj^iiK'iU-ilay. 'I'lu' hclicf that Ihc
spirit rested in the h(>il\- until Ihialiy traiis|)()i'te(l t(i the aaln
fields (the Islands of the I'.lest, afterward adojUed by the
Creeks) was one reason for the earefti! preservation of the
liod\' bv nuininiifying processes. I,ife itself was not nujre
important than death. Hence the iniposiiiii; ceremonies of
the funeral and burial, the elaborate richness of the tomb
and its wall paintings. I'erhaps the first Egyptian art arose
through religu)us observance, and certainly the first known
to us was sepidchral.
AKT MOTIVES: 'The centre of the Egyptian system was
the numareh ami his supposed relatives, the gods. 'I'hey
arrogated to themselves the chief thought of life, and tlie
aim of the great bulk of the art was to glorify monarchy or
licit V. The massive l)uildings, still standing to-day in ruins,
were built as the dwelling-places of kings or the sanctuaries
of gods. The towers symbolized deity, the sculptures and
paintings recited the functional duties of presiding spirits,
or tiie Pliarao|T£ looks and acts. Almost everything about
the public buildings in painting and sculpture was symbolic
illustration, picture-written history — written with a chisel
and brush, written large that all might read. There was
no other safe way of preserving record. There were no
books ; the papyrus sheet, used extensively, was frail, and
the Egyptians evidently wished their btiildings, carvings,
and paintings to last intt) eternity. So they wrought in
and upon stone. The same hieroglyphic character of their
papvrus writings appeared cut and colored on the palace
walls, and above them and beside them the pictures ran as
vignettes explanatory of the text. In a less ostentatious way
the tombs perpetuated history in a similar manner, reciting
the domestic scenes from the life of the individual, as the
temples and palaces the religious and monarchical scenes.
In one form or another it was all record of Egyptian life,
but this was not the only motive of their painting. The
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
temples and palaces, designed to shut out light and heat,
were long squares of heavy stone, gloomy as the cave
from which their plan may
have originated. Carving
and color were used to
brighten and enliven the
interior. The battles, the
judgment scenes, the Pha-
raoh playing at draughts
with his wives, the religious
rites and ceremonies, were
all given with brilliant ar-
bitrary color, surrounded
. -, J,-,,,, , ^^ oftentimes by bordering
ll P\" ^^ '^'/'/'^P^ bands of green, yellow, and
jl j pB'^v^^BV..^,^^ " blue. Color showed every-
where from floor to ceil-
ing. Even the explanatory
hieroglyphic texts ran in
colors, lining the walls and
winding around the cylin-
ders of stone. The lotus
capitals, the frieze and architrave, all glowed with bright
hues, and often the roof ceiling was painted in blue and
studded with golden stars.
All this shows a decorative motive in Egyptian painting,
and how constantly this was kept in view may be seen at
times in the arrangement of the different scenes, the large
ones being placed in the middle of the wall and the smaller
ones going at the top and bottom, to act as a frieze and
dado. There were, then, two leading motives for Egyptian
painting ; (i) History, monarchical, religious, or domestic ;
and (2) Decoration.
TECHNICAL METHODS: Man in the early stages of civ-
ilization comprehends objects more by line than by color
FIG. 2. — fOKTRAlT OF IjLEFN "lAlA.
(fRO.M FERROT and CHII'IEZ.)
KCVrXIAN TAINTING. 5
or light. The figun.' is not stiuiiril in itscll, hut in its
sun-shadow or silliouettc. The Kgyptian hiuroglvjih repre-
sented objects by outlines or arbitrary marks anil conveyed
a simple meaning without circumlocution. The Kgyjitian
painting was substantially an enlargement of the hierogUph.
There was no attempt to jilace objects in the setting which
thev hold in nature. Terspective anil light-and-shade were
disregarded. Objects, of whatever nature, were shown in flat
profile. In the human figure the shouklers were sipiare, the
hips slight, the legs and arms long, the feet and hands flat.
The head, legs, and arm.-; were shown in profile, while the
chest and eye were twistecl to show the flat front view.
There are only one or two full-faced figures among the re-
mains of Kgvptian painting, .\fter the outline was drawn
tlie enclosed space was filled in with plain color. In the
absence of high light, or composed groups, prominence was
given to an important figure, like that of the king, by mak-
ing it much larger than the other figures. This may be
seen in any of the battle-pieces of Rameses II., in which
the monarch in his chariot is a giant where his followers
are mere pygmies. In the absence of perspective, receding
figures of men or of horses were given by multipHed outlines
of legs, or heads, placed before, or after, or raised above
one another. Flat water was represented by zigzag lines,
placed as it were upon a map, one tree symbolized a forest,
and one fortification a town.
These outline drawings were not realistic in any exact
sense. The face was generally expressionless, the figure,
evidently done from memory or pattern, did not reveal ana-
tomical structure, but was nevertheless graceful, and in the
representation of animals the sense of motion was often
given with much truth. The color was usually an attempt
at nature, though at times arbitrary or symbolic, as in the
case of certain gods rendered with blue, yellow, or green
skins. The backgrounds were alwavs of flat color, arbitrary
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
in hue, and decorative only. The only composition was a
balance by numbers, and the processional scenes rose tier
upon tier above one another in long panels.
Such work would seem almost ludicrous did we not keep
in mind its reason for existence. It was, first, symbolic
story-telling art, and secondly, architectural decoration. As
a story-teller it was effective because of its simplicity and
directness. As decoration, the repeated expressionless face
and figure, the arbitrary color, the absence of perspective
'\''B M\ ~M./MLMM' /*■ V M "]?lx. '/Ais^A-.'
Flci, 3. — (.il'FEKLNCS TO THE DEAD, WALL PAINTING, EIGHrtKNI I! D\SAS\ \.
(fRCim PERROT and CHIPIEZ.)
were not inappropriate tlien nor are they now. Egyptian
painting never was free from the decorative motive. Wall
MGVl'TI.W TATNTING. 7
p.iiiUiiij;' was litllr more ihaii an adjunct of architcrUirc, and
probal)ly ,>;vc\v out of sculpture. TIk- early statues were
colored, and on the wall the chisel, like the Hint of Primitive
Man, cut the outline of the figure. At first only this cut was
lllled with color, producing what has been called the koil-
anaglvphic. In the fmal stage the line was made by draw-
ing with chalk or coal on prepared stucco, and the color,
nu\ed with gum-water (a kintl of ilistemper), was applied to
tlie whole enclosed space. Substantially the same method
of painting was used upon other materials, such as wood,
numimy cartonuage, papyrus ; and in all its thousands of i
vears of existence Egyptian painting never advanced upon i
or varied to anv extent this one method of work.
HISTORIC PERIODS; Egyptian art may be tracetl back
as far as the Third or Fourth Memphitic dynastv of kings.
The date is uncertain, but it is somewhere near 3,500 u.c.
The seat of empire, at that time, was located at Memphis
in Eower Egypt, and it is among the remains of this
Memphitic Period that the earliest and best painting is
found. In fact, all Egyptian art, literature, language, civil-
ization, seem at their highest point of perfection in the
period farthest removed from us. In that earliest age the
finest portrait busts were cut, and the painting, found chiefly
in the tombs and on the mummv-cases, was the attempted
realistic with not a little of spirited individuality. The
figure was rather short and sci.uat, the face a little squarer
than the conventional type afterward adopted, the action
better, and the positions, attitudes, and gestures more
truthful to local characteristics. The domestic scenes —
hunting, fishing, tilling, grazing — were all shown in the one
flat, planeless, shadowless method of representation, but
with better drawing and color and more variety than
appeared later on. Still, more or less conventional types
were used, even in this early time, and continued to be used
all through Egyptian history.
8 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
The Memphitic Period comes down to the eleventh dy-
nast)'. In the fifteenth dynasty comes the invasion of the
so-called Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings. Little is known of
the Hyksos, and, in painting, the next stage is the
Theban Period, which culminated in Thebes, in Upper
Egypt, with Rameses II., of the nineteenth dynasty. Paint-
ing had then changecT somewhat both in subject and char-
acter. The time was one of great temple- and palace-build-
ing, and, though the painting of genre subjects in tombs
and sepulchres continued, the general body of art became
more monumental and subservient to architecture. Paint-
ing was put to work on temple- and palace-walls, depicting
processional scenes, either religious or monarchical, and vast
m extent. The figure, too, changed slightly. It became
FIG. 4.— VIGNETTE ON PAPYRUS, LOUVRE. (FROM PERROT AND CHIPIEZ.)
longer, slighter, with a pronounced nose, thick lips, and
long eye. From constant repetition, rather than any set
rule or canon, this figure grew conventional, and was re-
EGYPTIAN PAINTING. 9
priHliKi'd as a type in a mci haiiical ami imvarj'inj; manner
lor huiulrcds of years. It was, in fact, only a variation
from the original l'^j;yptian type seen in tine tombs of the
earliest ilynasties. There was a great (piantity of art pro-
di\ceil during the 'I'lieban I'eriotl, and of a graceful, decora-
tive character, but it was rather monotonous by repetition
and I'llled with established mannerisms. The ]'>gyptiaii
really never was a free worker, never an artist expressing
hniiselt ; but, tor his day, a skilled mechanic following time-
honored examj^le. In the
Saitic Period the seat of empire was once more in
Lower Kg\pt, and art had visibly declined with the waning
power of the country. All spontaneity seemed to have
passetl out of it, it was repetition of repetition by poor
workmen, and the simplicity and purity of the technic were
corrupted by foreign influences. AVith the Alexandrian
epoch E^gyptian art came in contact with Greek methods,
and grew imitative of the new art, to the detriment of its
own native character. Eventually it was entirely lost in
the art of the Greco-Roman world. It was never other
than conventional, produced by a method almost as unvary-
ing as that of the hieroglyphic writing, and in this very
respect characteristic and reflective of the unchanging
Orientals. Technically it had its shortcomings, but it con-
veyed the proper information to its beholders and was ser-
viceable and graceful decoration for Egyptian days.
EXTANT PAINTINGS : The temples, palaces, and tombs of Egypt still
reveal Eg)'ptian painting in almost as perfect a state as wlien originally
executed ; the Ghizeh Museum has many fine examples ; and there are
numerous examples in the museums at Turin, Paris, Berlin, London, New
^'ork, and Boston. An interesting collection l)eIongs to the New York
Historical Society, and some of the latest "finds" of the Egypt Explora-
tion Fund are in the Boston Museum.
CHAPTER II.
CHALD/EO-ASSYRIAN PAINTING.
Books Ri:c(LM,mf,nuei) : Babelon, Manual of Oriental An-
tiquities: Botta, Monument tie Ninive : Budge, Babylonian
Life and History ; Duncker, History of Antiquity; Layard,
N'inevch and its Remains ; l,a3'ard, Discoveries Anions; Ruins
of Nineveh and Babvlon ; Lenormant, Manual of the Aneient
History of the East; Lof tus, Travels in Chahhea and Susiana ;
Maspero, Rife in Aneient Ri^ypt and Assyria; Perrot and
Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldiea and Assyria ; Place,
Ninive et l' Assyrie ; Sayce, Assyria: Its Ralaees, Rriests, and
People.
TIGRIS - EUPHRATES CIVILIZATION: In many respects the
civilization along the Tigris - Euphrates was like that
along the Nile. Both valleys were settled by primitive
peoples, who grew rapidly by virtue of favorable climate
and soil, and eventually developed into great nations headed
by kings absolute in power. The king was the state in
Egypt, and in Assyria the monarch was even more domi-
nant and absolute. For the Pharaohs shared architecture,
painting, and sculpture with the gods ; but the Sargonids
seem to have arrogated the most of these things to them-
selves alone.
Religion was perhaps as real in Assyria as in Egypt, but
it was less apparent in art. Certain genii, called gods or
demons, appear in the bas-reliefs, but it is not yet settled
whether they represent gods or merely legendary heroes or
monsters of fable. 'Pliere was no great demonstration of
religion by form and color, as in Egypt. The Assyrians
ClIAI.D.l'.O-ASSVKIAN I'MNTrNC.
II
were Semites, and religion with them was more a matter
of the spirit thau the senses — an iniaye in the mind ratiier
than an image in metal or stont'. 'I'lie temple was not elo-
quent with the aetions and deeds of the ,L;ods, and even tiie
tomb, that fruitful souree of art in l\i;ypt, was in ChaUhea
unileeorated and in Assyria unknown. No oiu' knows what
the Assyrians diil with their ilead, unless they I'arried them
baek to the fatherlaiul of the raee, the I'ersian (Uilf region,
as the native tribes of Mesopotamia tlo to this day.
AKT MOTIVES: As in Egypt, there were two motives for
art — illustration and deeoration. Religion, as we have seen,
hanlly obtaineil at all. The king attracted the greatest
attention. The countless bas-reliefs, cut on soft stone slabs,
were pages from the history of the monarch in peace and
war, in council, in the chase, or in processional rites. Be-
side him and around him his officers came in for a share of
the backgrounil glory. Occasionally the common people
had representations of their lives and their pursuits, but
the main subject of all the val-
ley art was the king and his
doings. Sculpture and paint-
ing were largely illustrations
accompanying a history writ-
ten in the ever-present cunei-
form characters.
But, while serving as history,
like the picture-writings of the
Egyptians, this illustration was
likewise decoration, and was
designed with that end in
view. Rows upon rows of
partly colored bas-reliefs were arranged like a dado along
the palace-wall, and above them wall-paintings, or glazed
tiles in patterns, carried out the color scheme. Almost all
of the color has now disappeared, but it must have been
.5. — ENAMELLED HlvlCK. NIMKOI
(from )'ERF^0T and CHU'IE/.)
12
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
brilliant at one time, and was doubtless in harmony with the
architecture. Both painting and sculpture were subordi-
nate to and dependent upon architecture. Palace-building
FIG. 6. — ENAMELLED BRICIC. KHORSABAD. (FROM I'ERROT AND CHlflE/..}
was the chief pursuit, and the other arts were called in
mainly as adjuncts — ornamental records of the king who
built.
THE TYPE, FORM, COLOR: There were only two distinct
faces in Assyrian art — one with and one without a beard.
Neither of them was a portrait except as attributes or
inscriptions designated. The type was unendingly repeated.
Women appeared in only one or two isolated cases, and
even these are doubtful. 'I'he warrior, a strong, coarse-
membered, heavily muscled creation, with a heavy, expres-
sionless, Semitic face, appeared everywhere. The figure
was placed in profile, with eye and bust twisted to show
the front view, and the long feet projected one beyond the
other, as in the Nile pictures. This was the Assyrian ideal
of strength, dignity, and majesty, established probably in
the early ages, and repeated for centuries with few char-
acteristic variations. The figure was usually given in mo-
tion, walking, or riding, and had little of that grace seen in
Egyptian painting, but in its place a great deal of rude
rirALD.1X)-ASSYRIAN PAINTING. I 3
strength. In nuHlt'lling, the human Idrni was not so know-
ingly rendered as the anlniah 'I'he long Eastern clothing
probably preventetl the close study of the figure. Tiiis fail-
ure in anat(Uiiical exactness was balancetl in part l)y min-
ute details in the tlress and accessories, productive of a ricli
ornamental effect.
Hard stone was not found in the Mesopotamian regions.
Temples were built of burnt brick, bas-reliefs were made
upon alabaster slabs and heightened by coloring, and paint-
ing was largely upon tiles, with mineral paints, afterward
glazed by hre. These glazed brick or tiles, with figured
designs, were fi.xed upon the walls, arches, and archivolts
by bitumen mortar, and made up the first mosaics of which
we have record. There was a further painting upon plaster
in distemper, of which some few traces remain. It ditl
not differ in design from the bas-reliefs or the tile mo-
saics.
The subjects used were the Assyrian type, shown some-
what slighter in painting than in sculpture, animals, birds,
and other objects ; but they were obviously not attempts
at nature. The color was arbitrary, not natural, and there
was little perspective, light-and-shade, or relief. Heavy
outline bands of color appeared about the object, and the
prevailing hues were yellow and blue. There was perhaps
less symbolism and more direct representation in Assyria
than in Egypt. 'I'here was also more feeling for perspec-
tive and space, as shown in such objects as water and in
the mountain landscapes of the late bas-reliefs ; but, in the
main, there was no advance upon Egypt. There was a
difference which was not necessarily a development. Paint-
ing, as we know the art to-day, was not practised in Chaldeea-
Assyria. It was never free from a servitude to architecture
and sculpture ; it was hampered by conventionalities ; and
the painter vi'as more artisan than artist, having little free-
dom or individuality.
14
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
HISTORIC PERIODS: Chaldsea, of unknown antiquit}', with
Babylon its capital, is accounted the oldest nation in the
Tigris-Euphrates valley, and, so far as is known, it was an
original nation producing an original art. Its sculpture
(especially in the Tello heads), and presumably its painting,
were more realistic and individual than any other in the
valley. Assyria coming later, and the heir of Chaldaa,
was the
Second Empire : There are two distinct periods of this
Second Empire, the first lasting from 1,400 B.C., down to
about 900 B.C., and in art showing a great profusion of
bas-reliefs. The second closed about 6^25 b. c, and in art
Fit.. 7. — WILD ASS. BAS-RKL1KI-", DKITISH .MUSEUM. (FKOM I'RNkOl' AM) (lUI'IKZ.)
produced much glazed -tile work and a more elaborate
sculpture and painting. After this the Chaldsan provinces
gained the ascendency again, and Babylon, under Nebuchad-
nezzar, became the first city of Asia. But the new Babylon
did not last long. It fell before Cyrus and the Persians
536 B.C. Again, as in Egypt, the earliest art appears the
TKUSIAN I'MNI'lNc;. 15
purest aiul the sinipl. st, and the years of ChaUheo-Assyriali
history known to us earry a rceoril of ehanye rather than
of progress in art.
ART REMAINS: The most vnUiahle collections of CliaUlao-Assyi iali
art arc to lie louiul in the I^ouvre ami llie lirilisli Museum. Tlic other
large museums of hairope liavc collections in this deiiartment, hut all of
them eoniliiueil are little com|iarei-l with tlie treasures that still lie hurieil
in the mounds ot the 'rigris-Kuphrales \'alley. Excavations have been
mai-le at Muglieir, W'arka, Khorsabail, Koiiyuujik, ami elsewhere, but
man)' tlithculties have thus far rendered systematic work impossible. The
complete history of Chaldieo-Assyria and its art has yet to be written.
PERSIAN PAINTING.
Books Recommended : As before cited, Babelon, Duncker,
Lenormant, Ely ; Dieulafoy. L' Art Antique de la Perse ;
Flandin et Coste, lavage eii Perse ; Justi, Geschichte des alien
Persiens j Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Persia.
HISTORY AND ART MOTIVES: The Medes and Persians were
the natural inheritors of Assyrian civilization, but they did
not improve their birthright. The Medes soon lost their
power. Cyrus conquered them, and established the powerful
Persian monarchy upheld for two hundred years by Cam-
byses, Darius, and Xer.ves. Substantially the same condi-
tions surrounded the Persians as the Assyrians — that is, so
far as art production was concerned. Their conceptions of
life were similar, and their use of art was for historic illus-
tration of kingly doings and ornamental embellishment of
kingly palaces. Pioth sculpture and painting were acces-
sories of architecture.
Of Median art nothing remains. The Persians left the
record, but it was not wholly of their own invention, nor
was it very extensive or brilliant. It had little originality
about it, and was really only an echo of Assyria. The
i6
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
sculptors and painters copied their Assyrian predecessors,
repeating at Persepolis what had been better told at Nin-
eveh.
TYPES AND TECHNIC: The same subjects, types, and tech-
nical methods in bas-relief, tile, and painting on plaster were
followed under Darius as under Shalmanezer. But the imi-
tation was not so good as the original. The warrior, the
-lions' frieze, SUSA. (from PERROT and ClIIPIEZ.)
winged monsters, the animals all lost something of their air
of brutal defiance and their strength of modelling. Heroes
still walked in procession along the bas-reliefs and glazed
tiles, but the figure was smaller, more effeminate, the hair
and beard were not so long, the drapery fell in slightly
indicated folds at times, and there was a profusion of orna-
mental detail. Some of this detail and some modifications
in the figure showed the influence of foreign nations other
than the Greek ; but, in the main, Persian art followed in the
footsteps of Assyrian art. It was the last reflection of
riI(l';NICIAN, CVl'KIOTK, AND ASIA MINOR. \J
Mesopotami.ui spU'iidor. l'\)r with tlu- c()iH|uest nf Persia
bv Alcxaiulcr the hook of cxprcssivx' art in that vallry was
closed, aiul, iiatler Islam, it remains rioseil tn lliis day.
ART REMAINS: Persian p.iinling is sometliing aliout which little is
t^n.'wn liec.ui>,c lillle icmains. The Loiivie contains some leconstiucted
friezes made in mosaics of stamped brick and square tile, showing figures
of lions and a number of archers. The coloring is particularly rich, and
may give some idea of Persian pigments. Aside from the chief museums
of Europe the luilk of Persian art is still seen half-buried in the ruins of
Persepolis aiul elsewhere.
PHdNICIAN, CYPRIOTE, AND ASIA MINOR PAINTING.
Books Recommended : As before cited, Babelon, Duncker,
Ely, Girard, Lenormant ; Cesnola, Cyprus ; Cesnola, Cypriote
Antiquities i)i Aletropolitan Museum of Art ; Kenrick, Pliomi-
tiii ; Movers, Die I'lionizier : Perrot and Chipiez, History of
Art in Fluenieia ami Cyprus ; Perrot and Chipiez, History of
Art ill SarJiuid, JuJea, Syria ami Asia Minor ; Perrot anil
Chi]5iez, History of Art in F/irygia, I.yJia, etc.; Renan, j]/is-
sion Je P/ieniiie.
THE TRADING NATIONS: The coast-lying nations of the
P'astern Mediterranean were hardly original or creative
nations in a large sense. They were at different times the
conquered dependencies of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece,
and their lands were but bridges over which armies passed
from east to west or from west to east. Eocated on the
Mediterranean between the great civilizations of antiquity
they naturally adapted themselves to circumstances, and
became the middlemen, the brokers, traders, and carriers of
the ancient world. Their lands were not favorable to agri-
culture, but their sea-coasts rendered commerce easy and
lucrative. They made a kingdom of the sea, and their means
of livelihood were gathered from it. There is no record
that the Egyptians ever traversed the Mediterranean, the
2
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Assyrians were not sailors, tlie Greeks had not yet arisen,
and so probably Phoenicia and her neighbors had matters
their own way. Colonies and
trading stations were estab-
lished at Cyprus, Carthage,
Sardinia, the Greek islands,
and the Greek mainland, and
not only Eastern goods but
Eastern ideas were thus car-
ried to the West.
Politically, socially, and re-
ligiously these small middle
nations were inconsequential.
They simply adapted their
politics or faith to the nation
that for the time had them
under its heel. What semi-
original religion they pos-
sessed was an amalgamation
of the religions of other na-
tions, and their gods of bronze,
terra-cotta, and enamel were
irreverently sold in the mar-
ket like any other produce.
AET MOTIVES AND METHODS: Building, carving, and paint-
ing were practised among the coastwise nations, but upon
no such extensive scale as in either Egypt or Assyria. The
mere fact that they were people of the sea rather than of
the land precluded extensive or concentrated development.
Politically Phoenicia was divided among five cities, and
her artistic strength was distributed in a similar manner.
Such art as was produced showed the religious and deco-
rative motives, and in its spiritless materialistic make-up, the
commercial motive. It was at the best a hybrid, mongrel
art, borrowed from many sources and distributed to many
fig. 9. — painted head from edessa.
(f-rom perrot and chu'Irp:.)
rrUl'.NICIAN, C'NI'KIO'rK, AND ASIA MINfJK
19
points of the oonipass. At oiu-tiiiK' it iiaci .1 stroii)^ Assyi'ian
cast, at another an l^j;yiitian cast, and alter Greece arose it
accepted a retroactive influence from there.
It is impossible to ciiaracterize tlie Phrenician type, and
even the Cypriote type, tliough more pronounced, varies so
witli tlie different influences that it has no very striking
individuahty. Technically both the Phoenician and Cypriote
were fair workmen in bronze and stone, and doubtless
taught many technical methods to the early Greeks, besides
making known to them those deities afterward adopted
under the names of Aphrodite, Adonis, and Heracles, and
familiarizing them with the art forms of Egypt and Assyria.
As for painting, there was undoubtedly figured decora-
tion upon walls of stone and plaster, but there is not enough
left to us from all the small nations like Phoenicia, Judea,
Cyprus, and the kingdoms of Asia Minor, put together, to
patch up a disjointed history. The first lands to meet the
spoiler, their very ruins have perished. All that there is of
10. — C\'I'K[MrK \ASE [lECOI.AIlON.
fl-KOM I'EKKI.IT AND CHlflEZ.)
painting comes to us in broken potteries and color traces
on statuary. The remains of sculpture and architecture
are of course better preserved. None of this intermediate
art holds much rank by virtue of its inherent worth, It is
20 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
its influence upon the ^Vest — the ideas, subjects, and meth-
ods it imparted to the Greeks — that gives it importance in
art history.
ART REMAINS: In painting chiefly Ihe vases in the Metropolitan
Museimi, New Vorl;, the Louvre, British and Berlin Museums. These
give a poor and incomplete idea of the painting in Asia Minor, Phoenicia
and her colonies. The terra-cottas, figurines in bronze, and sculptures can
be studied to more advantage. The best collection of Cypriote antiquities
is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. A new collection of Judaic
art has been recently opened in the Louvre.
CHAPTER III.
GREEK PAINTING.
Books Recommended : Baumeister, Denkmdler des klas-
sischcii Altertums — article '' Malcrei ;" Birch, History of An-
cient Pottery; Brunn, Geseliichte der griecJiisclien Kiinsiler ;
Collignon, Mxthologie figuree de la Grece ; Collignon, Manuel
d'Ari/taeologie Grccque ; Cros et Henry, L Encaustique et les
autres procedes de Peintnre cliez les Ancicns ; Girard, La Pein-
ture Antique ; Murray, Handbook of Greek Archa:ology ;
Overbeck, Antiken Sc'hriftquellen zur geschichte der bildenen
Kiinste bie den Griechcn ; Perrot and Chipiez, History of
Art in Greece ; W'oerman, Die Landschaft in der Kunst der
antiken Volker ; see also books on Etruscan and Roman
painting.
GREECE AND THE GEEEKS: The origin of the Greek race IS
not positively known. It is reasonably supposed that the
early settlers in Greece came from the region of Asia
jMinor, either across the Hellespont or the sea, and popu-
lated the Greek islands and the mainland. When this was
done has been matter of much conjecture. The early his-
tory is lost, but art remains show that in the period before
Homer the Greeks were an established race with habits
and customs distinctly individual. Egyptian and Asiatic
influences are apparent in their art at this early time, but
there is, nevertheless, the mark of a race peculiarly apart
from all the races of the older world.
The development of the Greek people was probably
helped by favorable climate and soil, by commerce and con-
quest, by republican institutions and political faith, by
22 HISTORY OF' PAINTING.
freedom of mind and of body ; but all these together are not
sufficient to account for the keenness of intellect, the purity
of taste, and the skill in accomplishment which showed in
every branch of Greek life. The cause lies deeper in the
fundamental make-up of the Greek mind, and its eternal
aspiration toward mental, moral, and physical ideals. Per-
fect mind, perfect body, perfect conduct in this world were
sought-for ideals. The Greeks aspired to completeness.
The course of education and race development trained
them physically as athletes and warriors, mentally as phi-
losophers, law-makers, poets, artists, morally as heroes
whose lives and actions emulated those of the gods, and
were almost perfect for this world.
AKT MOTIVES: Neither the monarchy nor the priesthood
commanded the services of the artist in Greece, as in As-
syria and Egypt. There was no monarch in an oriental
sense, and the chosen leaders of the Greeks never, until the
late days, arrogated art to themselves. It was something
for all the people.
In religion there was a pantheon of gods established and
worshipped from the earliest ages, but these gods were more
like epitomes of Greek ideals than spiritual beings. They
were the personified virtues of the Greeks, exemplars of
perfect living ; and in worshipping them the Greek was really
worshipping order, conduct, repose, dignity, perfect life.
The gods and heroes, as types of moral and physical qual-
ities, were continually represented in an allegorical or
legendary manner. Athene represented noble warfare,
Zeus was majestic dignity and power. Aphrodite love,
Phoebus song, Nike triumph, and all the lesser gods,
nymphs, and fauns stood for beauties of nature or of life.
The great bulk of Greek architecture, sculpture, and paint-
ing was put forth to honor these gods or heroes, and by so
doing the artist repeated the national ideals and honored
himself. The first motive of Greek art, then, was to praise
GREEK rAINTINC. 23
Hellas ami the Mellcnic view of life. In part it was a re-
ligious motive, but with little of that spiritual significance
and belief which ruled in Egypt, and later on in Italy.
.\ second and ever-present motive in Clreek painting was
decoration. This appears in the tomb pottery of the earli-
FIG. II. — ATTIC GRAVE PAINTING. (FROM BAUMEISTER.)
est ages, and was carried on down to the latest times. Vase
painting, wall painting, tablet and sculpture painting were
all done with a decorative motive in view. Even the easel
or panel pictures had some decorative effect about them,
though they were primarily intended to convey ideas other
than those of form and color.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The gods and heroes, their lives
and adventures, formed the early subjects of Greek painting.
24 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Certain themes taken from the "IHad " and the "Odyssey"
were as frequently shown as, afterward, the Annunciations
in Italian painting. The traditional subjects, the Centaurs
and Lapiths, the Amazon war, Theseus and Ariadne, Perseus
and Andromeda, were frequently depicted. Humanity and
actual Greek life came in for its share. Single figures, still-
life, ^w//r, caricature, all were shown, and as painting neared
the Alexandrian age a semi-realistic portraiture came into
vogue.
The materials employed by the Greeks and their methods
of work are somewhat difficult to ascertain, because there
are few Greek pictures, except those on the vases, left to
us. From the confusing accounts of the ancient writers,
the vases, some Greek slabs in Italy, and the Roman paint-
ings imitative of the Greek, we may gain a general idea.
The early Greek work was largely devoted to pottery and
tomb decoration, in which much in manner and method was
borrowed from Asia, Phoenicia, and Egypt. Later on, paint-
ing appeared in flat outline on stone or terra-cotta slabs,
sometimes representing processional scenes, as in Egypt,
and doubtless done in a hybrid fresco-work similar to the
Egyptian method. Wall paintings were done in fresco and
distemper, probably upon the walls themselves, and also
upon panels afterward let into the wall. Encaustic paint-
ing (color mixed with wax upon the panel and fused with a
hot spatula) came in with the Sikyonian school. It is pos-
sible that the oil medium and canvas were known, but not
probable that either was ever used extensively.
There is no doubt about the Greeks being expert draughts-
men, though this does not appear until late in history. They
knew the outlines well, and drew them with force and grace.
That they modelled in strong relief is more questionable.
Light-and-shade was certainly employed in the figure, but
not in any modern way. Perspective in both figures and land-
scape was used ; but the landscape was at first symbolic and
CKF.EK rAlN'I'lNC. 25
r.ii'ciygot bcyoiul a ilccuralivc back;;ri)Uiul fur the lij^urc.
(ircck composition \vr know little about, but may infer that
it was largely a series of balances, a symmetrical adjustment
of objects to I'll! a given space with not very much freedom
allowed to the artist. In atmosphere, sunlight, color, anil
those peculiarly sensuous charms that belong to painting,
there is no reason to believe that the Greeks approached
the moderns. Their interest was chiefly centred in the
human figure. Landscape, with its many beauties, was
reserved for modern hands to disclose. Color was used
in abundance, without doubt, but it was probably limited to
the leading hues, with little of that refinement or delicacy
known in painting to-day.
AET HISTORY: For the history of Greek painting we have
to rely upon the words of Aristotle, Plutarch, Pliny, Quin-
tilian, Lucian, Cicero, Pausanias. Their accounts appear to
be partly substantiated by the vase paintings, and such few
slabs and Roman frescos as remain to us. There is no
consecutive narrative. The story of painting originating
from a girl seeing the wall-silhouette of her lover and fill-
ing it in with color, and the conjecture of painting having
developed from embroidery work, have neither of them a
foundation in fact. The earliest settlers of Greece probably
learned painting from the Phoenicians, and employed it,
after the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Phoenician manner, on
pottery, terra-cotta slabs, and rude sculpture. It developed
slower than sculpture perhaps ; but were there anything (jf
importance left to judge from, we should probably find that
it developed in much the same manner as sculpture. Down
to 500 B.C. there was little more than outline filled in with
flat monochromatic paint and with a decorative effect sim-
ilar, perhaps, to that of the vase paintings. After that date
come the more important names of artists mentioned by
the ancient writers. It is difificult to assign these artists
to certain periods or schools, owing to the insufficient
26
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
knowledge we have about them. The following classifica-
tions and assignments may, therefore, in some instances, be
questioned.
OLDEE ATTIC SCHOOL: The first painter of rank was Pol-
ygnotus (fl. 475-455 b.c), sometimes called the founder of
■iri. 12. — ML'SE OF CORTitNA, COKTON.V 1MLSEI.M.
Cireek painting, because perhaps he was one of the first im-
portant painters in (Ireece proper. He seems to have been
a good outline draughtsman, producing figures in profile,
with little attempt at relief, perspective, or light-and-shade.
His colors were local tones, but probably' more like nature
and more varied than anything in Egyptian painting. Land-
scapes, buildings, and the like, were given in a symbolic man-
ner. Portraiture was a generalization, and in figure com-
GKEKK I'AINTINC;. 2/
positions liie names of the principal characlcrs were written
near tiieni for purposes of idenlilieation. The most important
works of roiyjiiiotus were the wall paintings for the Assem-
bly Room of the Knitlians at Delphi. 'I'he subjects related
to the I'rojan War and the adventures of LHysses.
Opposed to this tlat, unrelievetl style was the work of a
follower, Agatharchos of Samos (fl. end of fifth century
I'.A .). He was a scene-painter, and by the necessities of his
cralt was letl toward nature. Stage effect reipiired a study
of perspective, variation of light, and a knowledge of the
laws of optics. The slight outline drawing of his predecessor
was probably superseded by effective masses to create illu-
sion. 'I'his was a distinct advance toward nature. Apollo-
dorus (fl. end of fifth century li.c.) applied the principles of
Agatharchos to figures. According to Plutarch, he was the
first to discover variation in the shade of colors, and, ac-
cording to Pliny, the first master to paint objects as they
appeared in nature. He had the title of skiagraplios (shadow-
painter), and possibly gave a semi-natural background with
perspective. This was an improvement, but not a perfec-
tion. It is not likely that the backgrounds were other than
conventional settings for the figure. Even these were not
at once accepted by the painters of the period, but were
turned to profit in the hands of the follow'ers.
After the Peloponnesian Wars the art of painting seems
to have flourished elsewdiere than in Athens, owing to the
Athenian loss of supremacy. Other schools sprang up in
various districts, and one to call for considerable mention
by the ancient writers was the
IONIAN SCHOOL, which in reality had existed from the
sixth century. The painters of this school advanced upon
the work of Apollodorus as regards realistic effect. Zeuxis,
whose fame was at its height during the Peloponnesian
Wars, seems to have regarded art as a matter of illu-
sion, if one may judge by the stories told of his work.
28 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
The tale of his painting a bunch of grapes so like reality
that the birds came to peck at them proves either that the
painter's motive was deception, or that the narrator of the
tale picked out the deceptive part of his picture for admi-
ration. He painted many subjects, like Helen, Penelope,
and many genre pieces on panel. Quintilian says he orig-
inated light-and-shade, an achievement credited by Plu-
tarch to Apollodorus. It is probable that he advanced
light-and-shade.
In illusion he seems to have been outdone by a rival,
Parrhasios of Ephesus. Zeuxis deceived the birds with
painted grapes, but Parrhasios deceived Zeuxis wMth a
painted curtain. There must have been knowledge of color,
modelling, and relief to have produced such an illusion, but
the aim was petty and unworthy of the skill. There was
evidently an advance technically, but some decline in the
true spirit of art. Parrhasios finally suffered defeat at the
hands of Timanthes of Kythnos, by a Contest between Ajax
and Ulysses for the Arms of Achilles. Timanthes's famous
work was the Sacrifice of Iphigenia, of which there is a
supposed Pompeian copy.
SIKYONIAN SCHOOL: This school seems to have sprung up
after the Peloponnesian Wars, and was perhaps founded
by Eupompos, a contemporary of Parrhasios. His pupil
Pamphilos brought the school to maturity. He apparently
reacted from the deception motive of Zeuxis and Par-
rhasios, and taught academic methods of drawing, com-
posing, and painting. He was also credited with bringing
into use the encaustic method of painting, though it was
probably known before his time. His pupil, Pausias, pos-
sessed some freedom of creation in genre and still-life sub-
jects. Pliny says he had great technical skill, as shown in
the foreshortening of a black ox by variations of the black
tones, and he obtained some fame by a figure of Methe
(Intoxication) drinking from a glass, the face being seen
C.KKKK I'AINTING
29
throuoh llu- j;lass. Aj^aiii the iiKilivrs scciii Irillinj;, but
again advaiu'iiig tciiiniral |i()\vcr is shown.
THEBAN-ATTIC SCHOOL: This was the fourth school (if
Greek paniting. Nikomachus (II. about ;,()0 n.t .), a facile
]iainter, was at its heai.1. His |ui|)il, Aristides, paintetl pa-
thetic scenes, ani.1 was perha|)s as remarkable for teaching
art to the celebrated Euphranor (II. 360 ii.c.) as for his own
FIG. 13. — 0D^'«:<:KY LANn'^C.^PR. VATIC'^N. fPRCiM ^VOI.TMANN AND ^VOHRMANN.)
productions. pAiphranor had great versatility in the arts,
and in painting was renowned for his pictures of the Olym-
pian gods at Athens. His successor, Nikias (fl. 340-300 n.c),
was a contemporary of Praxiteles, the sculptor, and was
possibly influenced by him in the painting of female fio-ures.
He was a technician of ability in composition, light-and-
shade, and relief, and was praised for the roundness of his
figures. He also did some tinting of sculpture, and is said
to have tinted some of the works of Praxiteles.
30 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
LATE PAINTEKS: Contemporary with and following these
last-named artists were some celebrated painters who really
belong to the beginning of the Hellenistic Period (323 b.c).
At their head was Apelles, the painter of Philip and Alex-
ander, and the climax of Greek painting. He painted many
gods, heroes, and allegories, with much "gracefulness," as
Pliny puts it. The Italian Botticelli, seventeen hundred
years after him, tried to reproduce his celebrated Calumny,
from Lucian's description of it. His chief works were his
Aphrodite Anadyomene, carried to Rome by Augustus, and
the portrait of Alexander with the Thunder-bolt. He was
undoubtedly a superior man technically. Protogenes rivalled
him, if we are to believe Petronius, by the foam on a dog's
mouth and the wonder in the eye of a startled pheasant.
A'e'tion, the painter of Alexander's Marriage to Roxana, was
not able to turn the aim of painting from this deceptive
illusion. After Alexander, painting passed still further into
the imitative and the theatrical, and when not grandiloquent
was infinitely little over cobbler-shops and huckster-stalls.
I^andscape for purposes of decorative composition, and
floor painting, done in mosaic, came in during the time
of the Diadochi. There were no great names in the latter
days, and such painters as still flourished passed on to
Rome, there to produce copies of the works of their pre-
decessors.
It is hard to reconcile the unworthy motive attributed
to Greek painting by the ancient writers with the high
aim of Greek sculpture. It is easier to think (and it is
more probable) that the writers knew very little about
art, and that they missed the spirit of Greek painting
in admiring its insignificant details. That painting tech-
nically was at a high point of perfection as regards the fig-
ure, even the imitative Roman works indicate, and it can
hardly be doubted that in spirit it was at one time equally
strong.
GREEK PAINTING.
31
EXTANT REMAINS : Tlicrc me few wall or panel pictures of Greek
limes in exisienee. l'"our slabs of stone in the Naples Museum, willi red
oulline drawings uf Theseus, Silenos, and some ligures \vit!i masks, are
]irohal'ly llveek wMrk from wliieli Llie ei-dor lias scaled. A number of
Roman copies ol (.neek frescos and n\osaics are in the Vatican, Ca|nto-
line, and Naples Museums. All these pieces show an imitation of late
Hellenistic art — not the best period of Greek development.
THE VASES: The history of Greek painting in its remains is traced
with some accuracy in the decorative figures upon the vases. The first
ware — dating befiire the seventh century l-s.c. — seems free from oriental
iut^uencos in its designs. The vase is reddish, the
decoratii-'u is in tiers, bands, or zig-zags, usually in
black or brown, without the human hgure. The
second kind of ware dates from about the middle
of the seventh century. It shows meander, wave,
anel other designs, and is called the "geometrical "
style. Later on animals, rosettes, and vegetation
appear that show Assyrian influence. The decora-
tion is profuse and the rude human figure subor-
dinate to it. The design is in black or dark-brown,
on a cream-colored slip. The third kind of ware
is the archaic or "strong" style. It dates from
500 B.C. to the Peloponnesian Wars, and is marked
by black figures upon a yell -w or red ground.
White and purple are also used to define flesh, hair,
and white objects. The figure is stiff, the action awkward, the composi-
tion is freer than before, but still conventional. The subjects are the
gods, demi-gods, and heroes in scenes from their lives and adventures.
The fourth kind of ware dates down into the Hellenistic age and shows
red figures surrounded by a black ground. The figure, the drawing, the
composition are better than at any other period and suggest a high excel-
lence in other forms of Greek painting, After Alexander, vase painting
seems to have shared the fate of wall and panel painting. There was a
striving for effect, with ornateness and extravagance, and finally the art
passed out entirely.
There was an establishment founded in Southern Italy which imitated
the Greek and produced the Apulian ware, but the Romans gave little en-
couragement to vase painting, and about 65 B.C. it disappeared. Almost
all the museums of the world have collections of Greek vases. The
British, Berlin, and Paris collections are perhaps as complete as any.
Fro. 14. — AMPHORE,
1_0WEI< ITALV.
32 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN PAINTING.
Books Recommended : See Bibliography of Greek Paint-
ing and also Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruiia ; Graul,
Die Portrdtgeiiuilde aus den Grabstdtten des Faiyiim ; Hel-
big, Die Wandgemalde Campaniens ; Helbig, Untersuchungen
iilier die Campanische Wandmalerei ; Mau, Geschichte der Dec-
oiativen Wandmalerei in Pompeii ; Martha, L' Areheologie
Ptrusqiie et Romaine.
ETKUSCAN PAINTING : Painting in Etruria has not a great
deal of interest for us just here. It was largely decorative
and sepulchral in motive, and was employed in the painting
of tombs, and upon vases and other objects placed in the
tombs. It had a native way of expressing itself, which at
first was neither Clreek nor Oriental, and yet a reminder of
both. Technically it was not well done. Before 500 B.C. it
was almost childish in the drawing. After that date the
figures were better, though short and squat. Those on
the vases usually show outline drawing filled in with dull
browns and yellows. Finally there was a mingling of
Etruscan with Greek elements, and an imitation of Greek
methods. It was at best a hybrid art, but of some impor-
tance from an archaeological point of view.
ROMAN PAINTING : Roman art is an appendix to the art
history of Greece. It originated little in painting, and was
content to perpetuate the traditions of Greece in an imita-
tive way. What was worse, it copied the degeneracy of
Greece by following the degenerate Hellenistic paintings.
In motive and method it was substantially the same work as
that of the Greeks under the Diadochi. The subjects, again,
were often taken from Greek story, though there were
Roman historical scenes, genre pieces, and many portraits.
In the beginning of the Empire tablet or panel painting
was rather abandoned in favor of mural decoration. That
KTRUSCAN AND ROMAN PAINTING.
33
is t(i say, fimiri's or oroups were paiiUeil in fi'cs( n on
the wall and then surrounded by ^geometrical, lloral, or
architectural designs to yi\e the elTect of a panel let into
fk;. IS- — Kiri'Ai,
(IK.IM W.I
CKNK, I'Al.ATINE WALI- PAINTING.
rMA\N AM) WOKKMANN.)
the wall. Thus painting assumed a more decorative nature.
Vitruvius says in effect that in the early days nature was
followed in these wall paintings, t)ut later on they became
ornate and overdone, showing many unsupported architect-
ural fafades and impossible decorative framings. This can
be traced in the Roman and Pompeian frescos. There
were four kinds of these wall paintings, (i.) Those that
covered all the walls of a room and did away with dado,
frieze, and the like, such as figures with large landscape
34
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
backgrounds showing villas and trees. (2.) Small paintings
separated or framed by pilasters. (3.) Panel pictures let
into the wall or painted with that effect. (4.) Single figures
FIG. 16. — l*l)RTK..^IT-HEAD. (FROM FAVOl':\l, GRAF COI.,)
with architectural backgrounds. The single figures were
usually the best. They had grace of line and motion and
all the truth to nature that decoration required. Some of
the backgrounds were flat tints of red or black against
which the figure was placed. In the larger pieces the com-
ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN I'AINTINO. 35
position was rather rainliliii.L; and disjointcil, anil the rolor
liarsli. Ill liylu-aiul-shade and i-clicf they proljably followed
the Creek example.
ROMAN PAINTERS: IHirino;- the first five centuries Rome
was between the inlluenees of Ktruria and dreeee. The
first painting's in Ixome of which there is record were d(jne
i\i the Temple of Ceres by the Creek artists of Lower Italy,
Gorgasos and Damophilos (ll. 493 b.c). 'I'hey were doubtless
somewhat like the vase painti.igs — profile work, without
light, shade, or perspective. At the time and after yVlex-
ander Creek influence held sway. Fabius Pictor (fl. about
^00 li.c.) is one of the celebrated names in historical paint-
ing, and later on Pacuvius, Metrodorus, and Serapion are
mentioned. In the last century of the Republic, Sopolis,
Dionysius, and Antiochus Gabinius excelled in portraiture.
Ancient painting really ends for us with the destruction of
Pompeii (79 A.D.), though after that there were interesting
portraits produced, especially those found in the Fayoum
(Egypt).*
EXTANT REMAINS: The frescos that are left to us to-day are largely
the work of mechanical decoraturs rather than creative artists. They are
to be seen in Rome, in the Baths of Titus, the Vatican, Livia's Villa,
Farnesina, Rospigliusi, and Barl>erini Palaces, Baths of Caracalla, Capito-
line and Lateran Museums, in the houses of excavated Pompeii, and the
Naples Museum. Besides these there are examples of Roman fresco and
distemper in the Louvre and other European Museums. Examples of
Etruscan painting are to be seen in the Vatican, Cortona, the Louvre, the
British Museum and elsewhere.
* See Scribner's Magazine, vol. v., p. 219, New Series.
CHAPTER IV.
ITALIAN PAINTING.
EARLY CHRISTIAN AND MEDI/EVAL PERIOD. 2OO--I25O.
Books Recommended: lia.y(tt, L' Art Byza/itiii ; Bennett,
Christian Arckceoio^vj Bosio, La Roma Sottcrranca ; Burck-
liardt, TJic Cicerone, an Art Guide to Paintin;^ in Ital\\ cd. I'v
Crowe ; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, New History of Painting in
Italy ; Ue Rossi, La Roma Sottcrranca Cristiana ; Ue Rossi,
Bullcttino di Archeologia Cristiana; Didron, Christian Icono-
graphv ; Eastlake (Kiigler's), LLajidhook of Painting — The
Italian Schools; Garrucci, Storia dell' Arte Cristiana ;
("lerspach. La Alosa'iquc ; Lafenestre, La L-'cinture Italiennc ;
Lanzi, Historv of Painting in Italy ; Lecoy de la Marciie,
Les JManiiserits et la Miniature ; Lindsay, Sketches of the
History of Christian Art ; Martigny, Dictionnairc des An-
tiques Chreticnncs ; Perate, L Archeologie Chretiemie ; Reber,
History of Alediceval Art ; Rio, Poetry of Christian Art ;
Smitli and Cheetiiam, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
RISE OF CHRISTIANITY: Out of the decaying civilization
of Rome sprang into life that remarkable growth known as
Christianity. It was not welcomed by the Romans. It was
scoffed at, scourged, persecuted, and, at one time, nearly
exterminated. But its vitality was stronger than that of its
persecutor, and when Rome declined, Christianity utilized
the things that were Roman, while striving to live for ideas
that were Christian.
There was no revolt, no sudden change. The Christian
idea made haste slowly, and at the start it was weighed
down with many paganisms. The Christians themselves, in
ITALIAN I'AINTINC;.
37
all save ri'lii^ious faith, uiTf Romans, ami iiihrnUd i\i)iiian
tastes, maniurs, aiul nictluuis. I'.ut tlie Kuiiiaii wiirlil, with
all its ilassuisiii ami k'arnin;;', was ilyiiij,'. Tin; ilcrliin;
suciall)' aiul iiilcllcitualU' was with tlu' ( 'hristiaiis as well
as the Ronians. There was "ood leasiin for it. 'i'lit; times
FK;, 17. CHA.MUEK IN CATACOMHS, SHOWING WAI.l, D ECO R A'llON .
were out of joint, and almost everything was disorganized,
worn out, decadent. The military life of the Empire had
begun to give way to the monastic and feudal life of the
Church. Quarrels and wars between the powers kept life
at fever heat. In the fifth century came the inpouring of
the Goths and Huns, and with them the sacking and plunder
3S HISTORY OF PAINTING.
of the land. Misery and squalor, with intellectual black-
ness, succeeded. x\rt, science, literature, and learning
degenerated to mere shadows of their former selves, and
a semi-barbarism reigned for five centuries. During all
this dark period Christian painting struggled on in a feeble
way, seeking to express itself. It started Roman in form,
method, and even, at times, in subject ; it ended Christian,
but not without a long period of gradual transition, during
which it was influenced from many sources and underwent
many changes.
AET MOTIVES: As in the ancient world, there were two
principal motives for painting in early Christian times —
religion and decoration. Religion was the chief motive,
but Christianity was a very different religion from that of
the Greeks and Romans. The Hellenistic faith was a wor-
ship of nature, a glorification of humanity, an exaltation of
physical and moral perfections. It dealt with the material
and the tangible, and Greek art appealed directly to the
sensuous and earthly nature of mankind. The Hebraic
faith or Christianity was just the opposite of this. It decried
the human, the flesh, and the worldly. It would have noth-
ing to do with the beauty of this earth. Its hopes were
centred upon the life hereafter. The teaching of Christ
was the humility and the abasement of the human in favor
of the spiritual and the divine. Where Hellenism appealed
to the senses, Hebraism appealed to the spirit. In art the
fine athletic figure, or, for that matter, any figure, was an
abomination. The early Church fathers opposed it. It
was forbidden by the Mosaic decalogue and savored of
idolatry.
But what should take its place in art ? How could the
new Christian ideas be expressed without form ? Symbol-
ism came in, but it was insufficient. A party in the Church
rose up in favor of more direct representation. Art should
be used as an engine of the Church to teach the Bible to
ITAI,[AN PAINTINC.
39
lliDSv who i.oul(l mil read. This ar^umciil iuld Jiond, anil
luitwithstandiiii;' the opposition of the Iconoclastic ])arty
painting orew in favor, it lent itself to teaching and came
inuler ecclesiastical domination. As it left the nature of
the classic world anil loosened its grasp on things tangible
it became feeble and decrepit in its form. While it grew in
sentiment and religious fervor it lost in bodily vigor and
technical ability.
l''or many centuries the religious motive held strong, and
art was the servant of the Church. It taught the Bible
truths, but it also embellished and adorned the interiors of
^.:Uii[.?»53&^
.^'^'■^ -.^^ M ^1
--\i-
i l^Mf ■■ ll 1 4 X:4MAi\
FIG. l8. — C.^TACO.MB FRE.t^CO, CRYPT OF S. CECILI.'V, THIRD CE.NTUKV.
the churches. All the frescos, mosaics, and altar-pieces
had a decorative motive in their coloring and setting. The
church building was a house of refuge for the oppressed, and
it was made attractive not only in its lines and proportions
but in its ornamentation. Hence the two motives of the
early work — religious teachin.g and decoration.
SUBJECTS AND TECHNICAL METHODS: There was no distinct
Judaic or Christian type used in the very early art. The
painters took their models directly from the Roman frescos
and marbles. It was the classic figure and the classic cos-
40 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
tume, and those who produced the painting of tiie early
period were the degenerate painters of the classic world.
The figure was rather short and squat, coarse in the joints,
hands, and feet, and almost expressionless in the face.
Christian life at that time was passion-strung, but the faces
in art do not show it, for the reason that the Roman frescos
were the painter's model, not the people of the Christian
community about him. There was nothing like a realistic
presentation at this time. The type alone was given.
In the drawing it was not so good as that shown in the
Roman and I'ompeian frescos. There was a mechanism
abt)Ut its production, a copying by unskilled hands, a negli-
gence or an ignorance of form that showed everywhere.
The coloring, again, was a conventional scheme of flat tints
in reddish-browns and bluish-greens, with heavy outline
bands of brown, 'lliere was little perspective or back-
ground, and the figures in panels were separated by vines,
leaves, or other ornamental division lines. Some relief was
given to the figure by the brown outlines. Light-and-shade
was not well rendered, and composition was formal. The
great part of this early work was done in fresco after the
Roman formula, and was executed on the walls of the
Catacombs. Other forms of art showed in the gilded
glasses, in manuscript illumination, and, later, in the mosaics.
Technically the work begins to decline from the begin-
ning in proportion as painting was removed from the knowl-
edge of the ancient world. About the fifth century the
figure grew heavy and stiff. A new type began to show
itself. The Roman toga was exchanged for the long litur-
gical garment which hid the proportions of the body, the
lines grew hard and dark, a golden nimbus appeared about
the head, and the patriarchal in appearance came into art.
The youthful Orphic face of Christ changed to a solemn
visage, with large, round eyes, saint-like beard, and melan-
choly air. 'I'he classic qualities were fast disappearing.
ITALIAN PA I NT INC..
4t
Kastcrn types ami rlcnu'iits were lieini; introduced throujjh
liy/.intiuni. Orient.d uinamenlatii)n, .uokl eiiiliossinjj^, rieh
eoliir were dniiii; awav with f(irm, perspective, lijrht-and-
sliade, aiul baekgrouiul.
'I'lie color was rich and the iiiechanical workmanship fair
for the time, but the ligure luul become paralytic. It
shrouilcd itself in a sack-like brocaded gown, had no feet
at times, and instead of standing on the grountl hung in the
air. Facial expression ran to contorted features, holiness
became nioroseness, and sadness sulkiness. The flesh was
brown, the shadows green-tinted, giving an unhealthy look
-CHKIST A^ G'lOD SHEl'HKkD. MOSAIC, KA\ENNA, FIFTH CENIV'KV.
to the faces. Adil to this the gold ground (a Persian in-
heritance), the gilded high lights, the absence of perspec-
tive, and the composing of groups so that the figures
looked piled one upon another instead of receding, and we
have the style of painting that prevailed in Byzantium and
Italy from about the ninth to the thirteenth century. Noth-
ing of a technical nature was in its favor except the rich
coloring and the mechanical adroitness of the fitting.
42 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
EAKLY CHRISTIAN PAINTING; The earliest Christian paint-
ing appeared on the walls of the Catacombs in Rome.
These were decorated with panels and within the panels
were representations of trailing vines, leaves, fruits, flowers,
with birds and little genii or cupids. It was painting simi-
lar to the Roman work, and had no Christian significance
though in a Christian place. Not long after, however, the
desire to express something of the faith began to show it-
self in a symbolic way. The cups and the vases became
marked with the fish, because the Greek spelling of the word
" icthus "gave the initials of the Christian confession of faith.
The paintings of the shepherd bearing a sheep symbolized
Christ and his flock ; the anchor meant the Christian hope ;
the phosnix immortality ; the ship the Church ; the cock
watchfulness, and so on. And at this time the decorations
began to have a double meaning. The vine came to
represent the " I am the vine " and the birds grew longer
wings and became doves, symbolizing pure Christian souls.
It has been said this form of art came about through
fear of persecution, that the Christians hid their ideas in
symbols because open representation would be followed by
violence and desecration. Such was hardly the case. The
emperors persecuted the living, but the dead and their
sepulchres were exempt from sacrilege by Roman law.
They probably used the symbol because they feared the
Roman figure and knew no other form to take its place.
But symbolism did not supply the popular need ; it was im-
possible to originate an entirely new figure ; so the painters
went back and borrowed the old Roman form. Christ ap-
peared as a beardless youth in Phrygian costume, the Virgin
Mary was a Roman matron, and the Apostles looked like
Roman senators wearing the toga.
Classic story was also borrowed to illustrate Bible truth.
Hermes carrying the sheep was the Good Shepherd, Psyche
discovering Cupid was the curiosity of Eve, Ulysses clos-
ITALIAN PAINILNG.
43
ing his ears to the Sirens was tlie Christian resisting the
tempter. Tlie pagan Orplieiis ehanning the animals cif tlie
wood was linally adopted as a symljol, or perliaps an ideal
FIG. 20. CHRIST AND SAINTS, FRESCO. S. CENEROSA, SE\'KMII CENTL'R'. (?).
likeness of Christ. Then followed more direct representa-
tion in classic form and manner, the Old Testament pre-
figuring and emphasizing the New. Jonah appearetl cast
into the sea and cast by the whale on dry land again as a
symbol of the New Testament resurrection, and also as a
representation of the actual occurrence. JNIoses striking
the rock symbolized life eternal, and David slaying Goliath
was Christ victorious.
The chronology of the Catacombs painting is very much
mixed, but it is quite certain there was degeneracy from the
start. The cause was neglect of form, neglect of art as art,
mechanical copying instead of nature study, and finally, the
predominance of the religious idea over the forms of nature.
With Constantine Christianity was recognized as the na-
tional religion. Christian art came out of the Catacombs
and began to show itself in illuminations, mosaics, and
church decorations. Notwithstanding it was now free from
restraint it did not improve. Church traditions prevailed,
44 mSTORV OF PAINTING.
sentiment bordered upon sentimentality, and the technic of
painting passed from bad to worse.
The decHne continued during the sixth and seventh cen-
turies, owing somewhat perhaps to the influence of Byzan-
tium and the introduction into Italy of Eastern types and
elements. In the eighth century the Iconoclastic contro-
versy broke out again in fury with the edict of Leo the
Isaurian. This controversy was a renewal of the old quarrel
in the Church about the use of pictures and images. Some
wished them for instruction in the Word ; others decried
them as leading to idolatry. It was a long quarrel of over
a hundred years' duration, and a deadly one for art. When
it ended, the artists were ordered to follow the traditions,
not to make any new creations, and not to model any figure
in the round. The nature element in art was quite dead at
that time, and the order resulted only in diverting the course
of painting toward the unrestricted miniatures and manu-
scripts. The native Italian art was crushed for a time by
this new ecclesiastical burden. It did not entirely disap-
pear, but it gave way to the stronger, though ecjually re-
stricted art that had been encroaching upon it for a long
time — the art of Byzantium.
BYZANTINE PAINTING: Constantinople was rebuilt and
rechristened by Constantine, a Christian emperor, in the
year 328 .a.d. It became a stronghold of Christian tradi-
tions, manners, customs, art. But it was not quite the same
civilization as that of Rome and the West. It was bordered
on the south and east by oriental influences, and much of
Eastern thought, method, and glamour found its way into
the Christian community. The artists fought this influence,
stickling a long time for the severer classicism of ancient
Greece. For when Rome fell the traditions of the Old World
centred around Constantinople. But classic form was ever
being encroached upon by oriental richness of material and
color. The struggle was a long but hopeless one. As in
ITALIAN I'AINTrNG.
45
Italy, form faileil century b\- criUury. When, in the eighth
eenturv, the leiuioehistie eDiitrdversy cut away the little
t'jreek existins; in it, the oriental (irnanient was about all
that remained.
There was no ehanee for paintin^' to rise iiiuler the pre-
vailing eiinditions. l''ree artistic creation was denied the
artist. All ailvocate of pauitingat the Second Niceiie Cotm-
eil declared that : " It is not tlie invention of the [)aiater
that creates the picture, but an inviolable law of the Cath-
olic Church. It is not
the painter but the holy
fathers w ho have to invent
and dictate. To them
manifestly bch^ngs the
composition, to the paint-
er onlv the execution."
Painting was in a strait-
jacket. It hail to follow
precedent and copy what
had gone before in old
Byzantine patterns. ISoth
in Italy and in Byzantium
the creative artist had
passea away in favor of
the skilled artisan — the
repeater of time-honored
forms <jr colors. The
workmanship was good for
the time, and the coloring
and ornamental borders
made a rich setting, but
the real life of art had
gone. A long period of heavy, morose, almost formless
art, eloquent of mediKval darkness and ignorance, followed.
It is strange that such an art should be adopted by
21. — EZEKUa- IIRFOUI-: THE LUKU. MS.
l.lIMINATtON. J-AUIS, NINTH CENTL'RY.
46 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
foreign nations, and yet it was. Its bloody crucifixions and
morbid madonnas were well fitted to the dark view of life held
during the Middle Ages, and its influence was wide-spread
and of long duration. It affected French and German art,
it ruled at the North, and in the East it lives even to this
day. That it strongly affected Italy is a very apparent fact.
Just when it first began to show its influence there is mat-
ter of dispute. It probably gained a foothold at Ravenna
in the sixth century, when that province became a part
of the empire of Justinian. Later it permeated Rome,
Sicily, and Naples at the south, and Venice at the north.
With the decline of the early Christian art of Italy this
richer, and in many ways more acceptable, Byzantine art
came in, and, with Italian modifications, usurped the field.
It did not literally crush out the native Italian art, but
practically it superseded it, or held it in check, from the
ninth to the twelfth century. After that the corrupted
Italian art once more came to the front.
EARLY CHRISTIAN AND BYZANTINE REMAINS : Tlie best examples
of Early Christian painting are still to be seen in the Catacombs at Rome.
Mosaics in the early chvirches of Rome, Ravenna, Naples, Venice, Con-
stantinople. Sculptures, ivories, and glasses in the Lateran, Ravenna,
and Vatican museums. Illuminations in Vatican and Paris libraries. Al-
most all the museums of Europe, those of the Vatican and Naples particu-
larly, have some examples of Byzantine work. The older altar-pieces of
the early Italian churches date back to the mediseval period and show
Byzantine influence. The altar-pieces of the Greek and Russian churches
siiow the same influence even in modern work.
CHAPTER V.
ITALIAN PAINTING.
OdTHlC PERK ID. 1250-1400.
Books Rfx-ommendku : As before, Burckhardt, Crowe
and Cavalcaselle, Eastlake, Lafenestre, Lanzi, Lindsa)',
Rcber ; also Burton, Cata/oi^in- of Pictures in the Ahttional
Galler\\ Loiutoii (jiitalv'iJgt'd edition); Cartier, ]'ie dc Fia
Angi'liio ; Forster, Lii>cn und W'erkc dcs Fra Ani^clico ;
Habich, J^ade Mcaiin pour la Pcinturc Italicnnc dcs Ancicns
Maitrcs; Lacroix, Les Arts an A/ovcn-Agc ct H F Epoquc dc la
Jienaissancc ; Mantz, Les Chefs-d\vuvrc dc la Pcinturc Ital-
icnnc ; '^lortWi, Italian Masters i/i German Galleries; Morelli,
Italian Masters, Critical Studies in their Works; Rumohr,
Italicnischc Forschungen ; Stillman, Old Italian Masters;
Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters ; consult also
General Bibliography (p. xv).
SIGNS OF THE AWAKENING : It would seem at first as though
nothing but self-destruction could come to that struggling,
praying, throat-cutting population that terrorized Italy dur-
ing the Mediasval Period. The people were ignorant, the
rulers treacherous, the passions strong, and yet out of the
Dark Ages came light. In the thirteenth century the light
grew brighter, but the internal dissensions did not cease.
The Hohenstaufen power was broken, the imperial rule in
Italy was crushed. Pope and emperor no longer warred
each other, but the cries of " Guelf " and " Ghibelline " had
not died out.
Throughout the entire Romanesque and Gothic periods
(1000-1400) Italy was torn by political wars, though the
48 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
free cities, througli their leagues of protection and their
commerce, were prosperous. A commercial rivalry sprang
up among the cities. Trade with the East, manufactures,
banking, all flourished ; and even the philosophies, with law,
science, and literature, began to be studied. The spirit of
learning showed itself in the founding of schools and uni-
versities. Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, reflecting respec-
tively religion, classic learning, and the inclination toward
nature, lived and gave indication of the trend of thought.
Finally the arts, architecture, sculpture, painting, began to
stir and take upon themselves new appearances.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS : In painting, though there were
some portraits and allegorical scenes produced during the
Gothic period, the chief theme was Bible story. The
Church was the patron, and art was only the servant, as it
had been from the beginning. It was the instructor and
consoler of the faithful, a means whereby the Church made
converts, and an adornment of wall and altar. It had not
entirely escaped from symbolism. It was still the portrayal
of things for what they meant, rather than for what they
looked. There was no such thing then as art for art's sake.
It was art for religion's sake.
The demand for painting increased, and its subjects mul-
tiplied with the establishment at this time of the two power-
ful orders of Dominican and Franciscan monks. The first
exacted from the painters more learned and instructive
work ; the second wished for the crucifixions, the martyr-
doms, the dramatic deaths, wherewith to move people by
emotional appeal. To offset this the ultra-religious char-
acter of painting was encroached upon somewhat by the
growth of the painters' guilds, and art production largely
passing into the hands of laymen. In consequence paint-
ing produced many themes, but, as yet, only after the
Byzantine style. The painter was more of a workman than
an artist. The Church had more use for his fingers than for
ITALIAN TAINTINC.
49
his creative aliilitv. It was his husiiiess to transci'il)e wliat
had gone before. This he did, hut not witliout signs liere
and tliere of inu'asiness and disroiitent with tile pattern.
r"-
•mM^^^
1
wpNiv' nll^kr F ' %
^^
:- mE
^KyiBH^^- '"' '
^^' :j'
1^^
1^-.^
M
iii^B^^fldC^fi*^li^^& 'f / ^^■-''^H^l
Mi
'^^Ksi
rjBH^^^^^^B^B^BH^BBME^BKiEBBl
mm
i^ ji^
-'i<iSh.A.-itt„.v...,.., . ;_ —
'GIOTTO ri.i
AREN.\ CHAI
There was an inclination toward something truer to nature,
but, as yet, no great reahzation of it. The study of nature
came in very slowly, and painting was not positive in state-
ment until the time of Giotto and Lorenzetti.
The best paintings during the Gothic period were exe-
cuted upon the walls of the churches in fresco. The pre-
pared color was laid on wet plaster, and allowed to soak in.
The small altar and panel pictures were painted in dis-
temper, the gold ground and many Byzantine features being
retained by most of the painters, though discarded by some
few.
so
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
CHANGES IN THE TYPE, ETC.: The advance of Italian art
in the Gothic age was an advance through the development
of the imposed Byzantine pattern. It was not a revolt or a
starting out anew on a wholly original path. When people
began to stir intellectually the artists found that the old
Ijyzantine model did not look like nature. They began,
not by rejecting it, but by improving it, giving it slight
movements here and there, turning the head, throwing out
a hand, or shifting the folds of drapery. 'I"he Eastern type
was still seen in the long pathetic face, oblique eyes, green
flesh tints, stiff robes, thin fingers, and absence of feet ;
but the painters now began to modify and enliven it. More
realistic Italian faces were introduced, architectural and
landscape backgrounds encroached upon the Byzantine
gold grounds, even portraiture was taken up.
This looks very much like realism, but we must not lay
too much stress upon it. The painters were taking notes
of natural appearances. It showed in features like the
hands, feet, and drapery ; but the anatomy of the body had
not yet been studied, and there is no reason to believe
their study of the face was more than casual, nor their
portraits more than records from memory.
No one painter began this movement. 'I'he whole artis-
tic region of Italy was at that time ready for the advance.
That all the painters uKjved at about the same pace, and
continued to move at that pace down to the fifteenth
century, that they all based themselves upon Byzanthie
teaching, and that they all had a similar style of working is
proved by the great difficulty in attributing their existing
pictures to certain masters, or even certain schools. There
are plenty of pictures in Italy to-day that might be at-
tributed to either Florence or .Sienna, Giotto or Lorenzetti,
or some other master ; because though each master and each
school had slight peculiarities, yet they all had a common
origin in the art traditions of the time.
ITALIAN I'AINTINC.
SI
FLORENTINE SCHOOL: Cimabue (iJ40?-i,p2?) seems the
must notable instaiiee in eai'U' times nf a lly/.antiiie-eiliieated
painter who improved upon the traditions. lie lias l)eeil
ealled the lather ol Itahan painting, hut Italian painliuj^
had no lather. Cinuihue was simply a man of more origi-
nality and al'ihly than his eontemporaries, and departed
r-'-^irgy .-''if"
.\K.\nisR (iih; I -^
further from the art teaehin,u;s of the time without decidedly
opp(.)sinir them. He retained the liyzantiiie pattern, but
loosened the lines of drapery somewhat, turned the head to
one side, infused the fi.u^ure with a little appearance of life.
His contemporaries elsewhere in Italy were doing the same
thing, and none of them was any more than a link in the
progressive chain.
52
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Cimabuc's pupil, Giotto (i266?-i337), was a great im-
prover on all his predecessors because he was a man of ex-
traordinary genius. He would have been great in any
time, and yet he was not great enough to throw off wholly the
Byzantine traditions. He tried to do it. He studied nat-
ure in a general way, changed the type of face somewhat
by making the jaw squarer, and gave it e.xpression and no-
bility. To the figure he gave more motion, dramatic gest-
ure, life. The drapery was cast in broader, simpler masses,
with some regard for line, and the form and movement of
the body were somewhat emphasized through it. In meth-
ods Giotto was more knowing, but not essentially different
from his contemporaries ; his subjects were from the com-
mon stock of religious story; but his imaginative force and
invention were his own. Bound by the conventionalities of
his time he could still create a work of nobility and power.
He came too early for the highest achievement. He had
genius, feeling, fancy, almost everything e.xcept accurate
knowledge of the laws of nature and art. His art was the
best of its time, but it still lacked, nor did that of his im-
mediate followers go much beyond it technically.
Taddeo Gaddi (1300 ?-i366 ?) was Giotto's chief pupil, a
painter of much feeling, but lacking in the large elements
of construction and in the dramatic force of his master.
Agnolo Gaddi (1333 ?-i 396 ?), Antonio Veneziano (131 2 ?-
138S?), Giovanni da Milano (fl. 1366), Andrea da Firenze
(fl- 1377), were all followers of the Criotto methods, and
were so similar in their styles that their works are often
confused and erroneously attributed. Giottino (1324?-
1357 ?) was a supposed imitator of Giotto, of whom little
is known. Orcagua (1329 ?-i376 ?) still further advanced
the Giottesque type and method. He gathered up and
united in himself all the art teachings of his time. In
working out problems of form and in delicacy and charm
of e.xpression he went beyond his predecessors. He was
ITALIAN I'AINTIKC;.
53
a iiiaiiv-sidcd genius, knowing iml mily in a iiialkT of
natural apiK-aranci.', but in (.oloi' piobliins, in piTspc'ctivc,
shailmvs, and light. Ills an w.is turllui- alnni^- toward the
Renaissance than that of an\' other ( '■iottes(|ae. lie aliiKist
ehangeil the character of painting", and yet did not live near
enough to the fifteenth century to accomplish it completely.
Spinello Aretino (133:: ?-i4io ?) was the last of the great
('iiotlo followers. He carrieil out the teachings of the
sciuioi in technical features, such as composition, drawing,
and relief by color rather than by light, but he lacked the
creative power of Giotto. In fact, none of the Giottesr^ue
can be said to have improved upon the master, taking him
as a whole. Toward the beginning of the fifteenth century
the school rather declined.
SIENNESE SCHOOL: The art teachings and traditions of the
|i.ist seemed tleeper rooted at Sienna than at Florence.
Nor was there so much attempt t<i shake them off as at
Florence. Giotto broke the immo-
bilitv of the PJyzantine model by
showing the draped figure in action.
So also did the Siennese to some
e.xtent, but they cared more for the
expression of the spiritual than the
beauty of the natural. The Floren-
tines were robust, resolute, even a
little coarse at times ; the Siennese
were more refined and sentimental.
Their fancy ran to sweetness of face
rather than to bodily vigor. Again,
their art was more ornate, richer in costume, color, and de-
tail than Florentine art ; but it was also more finical and
narrow in scope.
There was little advance up(jn Byzantinism in the work
of Guido da Sienna (fl. 1275). F^ven Duccio (7260 ? — ?), the
real founder of the Siennese school, retained Byzantine
54 HISTORY OF I'AINTING.
methods and adopted the school subjects, but he perfected
details of form, such as the hands and feet, and while re-
taining th.^ long Byzantine face, gave it a melancholy ten-
derness of expression. He possessed no dramatic force,
but had a refined workmanship for his time — a workmanship
perhaps better, all told, than that of his Florentine contem-
porary, Cimabue. Simone di Martino (1283 ?-i344 ?) changed
the type somewhat by rounding the form. His drawing was
not always correct, but in color he was good and in detail
exact and minute. He probably profited somewhat by the
example of Giotto.
The Siennese who came the nearest to Giotto's excellence
were the brothers Ambrogio (fi. 1342) and Pietro (fl. 1350)
Lorenzetti. There is little known about them except that
they worked together in a similar manner. The most of
their work has perished, but what remains shows an
intellectual grasp equal to any of the age. The Sienna
frescos by Ambrogio Lorenzetti are strong in facial charac-
ter, and some of the figures, like that of the white-robed
Peace, are beautiful in their flow of line. Lippo Memmi
(?-i356), Bartolo di Fredi (1330-1410), and Taddeo di Bartolo
(1362-1422), were other painters of the school. The late
men rather carried detail to excess, and the school grew
conventional instead of advancing.
TRANSITION PAINTERS: Several painters. Stamina (1354-
1413), Gentile da Fabriano (1360 ?-i44o ?), Fra Angelico
(1387-1455), have been put down in art history as the
makers of the transition from Gothic to Renaissance paint-
ing. They hardly deserve the title. There was no transi-
tion. The development went on, and these painters, coming
late in the fourteenth century and living into the fifteenth,
simply showed the changing style, the advance in the study
of nature and the technic of art. Stamina's work gave
strong evidence of the study of form, but it was no such
work as Masaccio's. There is always a little of the past in
ITALIAN I'AINI'INC.
55
tlu' prcsfiU, .111(1 IIk'Sc painters sliowt'd traces of liy/.aiitiii-
ism in details ol the laee and l'ii;iire, in eolorin;;', and in j;(ild
eiiibossin;^".
Cientile had all that nieet\' ol hnish and richness of detail
and color chai'acteristn' ol the Sien-
nesc. i'lcnii; closer to the Renaissance
than his predecessors he was more of a
nature student, lie was the first man
to show the effect of sunlight in land-
scape, the first one to put a gold sun
in the skv. He never, however, out-
grew Gothic methods and really be-
longs in the fourteenth century. 'I'liis
is true of Fra Angelico. Though he
lived far into the Early Renaissance
he did not change his style 'and man-
ner of work in conformity with the
work of others about him. He was the
last inheritor of the Giottesque tradi-
tions. Religious sentiment was the
strong feature of his art. He was be-
hind Giotto and Lorenzetti in power
and in imagination, and behind Or-
cagna as a painter. He knew little of
light, shade, perspective, and color,
and in characterization was feeble, e.x-
cept in some late work. One face or type answered him for
all classes of people — a sweet, fair face, full of divine tender-
ness. His art had enough nature in it to express his mean-
ings, but little more. He was pre-eminently a devout
painter, and really the last of the great religionists in
painting.
The other regions of Italy had not at this time devel-
oped schools of painting of sufficient consequence to men-
tion.
V"^. . *i-T.-j^.A
G. 25. — VMA ANGELICO. A
GHL (dE'IAIL). UFFIZI.
56 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
PRINCIPAL WORKS : Florentines— Cimabue, Madonnas S. M.
Novella and Acad. Florence, frescos Upper Churcli of Assisi (?) ; Gi-
otto, frescos Upper and Lower churches Assisi, best work Arena cha[iel
Padua, Bardi and Peruzzi chapels S. Croce, injured frescos Pargellu F'lor-
ence ; Taddeo Gaddi, frescos entrance wall Baroncelli chapel S. Croce,
Spanish chapel S. M. Novella (designed by Gaddi (?)); Agnolo Gaddi
frescos in choir S. Croce, S. Jacopo tra F'ossi F'lorence, panel pictures
Florence Acad.; Giovanni da Milano, Bewailing of Christ F^lorence
Acad., Virgin enthroned Prato Gal., altar-piece Uffizi Gal., frescos S.
Croce Florence ; Antonio Veneziano, frescos in ceiling of Spanish
chapel, S. M. Novella, Campo Santo Pisa ; Orcagna, altar-piece Last
Judgment and Paradise Strozzi chapel S. M. Novella, S. Zeiiobio Duomo,
Saints Medici chapel S. Croce, Descent of Holy Spirit Badia Florence,
altar-piece Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Spinello Aretino, Life of St. Benedict S.
Miniato al Monte near Florence, Annunciation Convent degl' Innocenti
Arezzo, frescos Campo Santo Pisa, Coronation Florence Acad., Barbarossa
frescos Palazzo Publico Sienna ; Andrea da Firenze, Church Militant,
Calvary, Crucifixion Spanish chapel, Upper series of Life of S. Raniera
Campo Santo Pisa.
SiENNESE — Guido da Sienna, Madonna S. Domcnico Sienna ; Duc-
cio, panels Duomo and Acad. Sienna, Madonna Nat. Gal. Lon.; Simone
di Martino, frescos Palazzo Pul;l)lico, Sienna, altar-piece and panels Semi-
nario Vescovile, Pisa Gal., altar-piece and Madonna Opera del Duomo
Orvieto ; Lippo Memmi, frescos Palazzo del Podesta S. Gemignano,
Annunciation Uffizi Florence ; Bartolo di Fredi, altar-pieces Acad.
Sienna, S. Francesco Montalcino ; Taddeo di Bartolo, Palazzo Pubblico
Sienna, Duomo, S. Gemignano, S. Francesco I'isa ; Ambrogio Loren-
zetti, frescos Palazzo Pubblico Sienna, Triumph of Death (with Pietro
Lorenzetti) Campo Santo Pisa, St. Francis frescos Lower Church Assisi,
S. Francesco and S. Agostino Sienna, Annunciation Sienna Acad., Pres-
entation Florence Acad.; Pietro Lorenzetti, Virgin S. Ansano, altar-
pieces Duomo Sienna, Parish Church of Arezzo (worked with his broljier
Aml>rogio).
TRANSITION PAINTERS; Stamina, frescos Duomo Prato (com-
pleted by pupil); Gentile da Fabriano, Adoration Florence Acad.,
Coronation Brera Milan, Madonna Duomo Orvieto ; Fra Angelico, Cor-
onalioTi and many small panels Uffizi, many pieces Life of Christ Florence
Acad., other pieces S. Marco Florence, Last Judgment Duomo, Orvieto.
CnAl'TRI>i v\.
ITALIAN PAINTINC.
F.ARl.V RKNAISSANCIC. I4OO-150O.
Rooks Ri'Xommendkd : Asbcl\)re, Burckhardt, Crowe and
Cavalcaselle, Eastlake, Lafencstre, Lanzi, Habich, Lacroix,
Mantz, Morelli, Burtim, Rumohr, Stillman, Vasari ; also
Crowe ami Cavalcaselle, History of Paintiiit; in North Italy;
Berenson, Florentine Painters of Renaissance ; Berenson, I'cnc-
tian Painters of Renaissance ; Berenson, Central Italian Painters
oj Renaissance : Bosch in i. La Carta del Navegar ; Calvi, Me-
mo ric (lella Vita Cil ope re di Francesco Raibolini ; Cibo, Nicciilo
Aliinno e la scnola Umbra ; Citadella, Notizie relative a Ferrara ;
Morelli, Anoniiw), Xotizie : Mezzanotte, Coninientario delta Vita
di Pictro J'anncci ; JNIundler, Essai d'line Analvsi critique de la
Kotice des tableaux Italiens an Louvre; Muntz, Les Precurseurs
de la Renaissance ; Muntz, La Renaissance en Ltalie eten France ;
Patch, Life of Masaccio : Publications of the Arundel Society;
Richter, Italian Art in National Gallcrv, London; Ridolfi, Le
Meraviglie delf Arte; Rosini, Storia delta Pittura Italiana;
Schnaase, Gesehichte der bildendoi Kiinste ; Symonds, Renais-
sance in Italy — the Fine Arts; Vischer, Lucas Signorclli und
die Italienische Renaissance ; Waagen, Art Preasures; Waagen,
Andrea Mantegna und Luca Signorclli (in Raunicr's Taschen-
buch,{\Z'^o)\ Zanetti, Delia Pittura Veneziana.
THE ITALIAN MIND: There is no way of explaining the
Italian fondness for form and color other than by consider-
ing the necessities of the people and the artistic character
of the Italian mind. Art in all its phases was not only an
adornment but a necessity of Christian civilization. The
Church taught people by sculpture, mosaic, miniature, and
fresco. It was an object-teaching, a grasping of ideas by
58
HISTORY OF TAINTING.
forms seen in the mind, not a presenting of abstract ideas
as in literature. Printing was not known. There were few
manuscripts, and the majority of people could not read.
Ideas came to them
for centuries through
form and color, until
at last the Italian
mind took on a plastic
and pictorial charac-
ter. It saw things in
symbolic figures, and
when the Renaissance
came and art took the
lead as one of its
strongest expressions,
painting was but the
col or - thought and
form - language of the
people.
And these people,
by reason of their pe-
culiar education, were
an exacting people,
knowing what was
good anel demanding
it from the artists. Every Italian was, in a way, an art
critic, because every church in Italy was an art school.
The artists may have led the people, but the people spurred
on the artists, and so the Italian mind went on developing
and unfolding until at last it produced the great art of the
Renaissance.
THE AWAKENING: The Italian civilization of the fourteenth
century was made up of many impulses and inclinations,
none of them very strongly defined. There was a feeling
about in the dark, a groping toward the light, but the lead-
FILIIIT). MADONNA. LFFIZl.
TTAI.tAN l'.AIN'l'IN(".. 59
ers stunilik'il dftoii on tlu' ruad. 'I'Iutc was '^oihI rcasiiiilor
it. TIk' knowlcilsj,!' (if the aiuit'iit world lay buried under
tile rL'.ins of Rdiiii'. 'I'lie Italians had to leai-ii it ail o\'er
ai;'aiii, almost without a preeedent, almost witliont a pre-
eeptor. W'ltli tlie llfteeiith eentm-y the horizon l)e_L;an lo
lirii^liten. The Ivirlv Renaissance was l)ei;ini. it was not
a revolt, a reaction, or a starting' out on a new path. It was
a development of the (iotliic period ; and tlie three inclina-
tions of the Gothic period — reili<;"ion, the desire for classic
knowledge, and the stiuly of nature — were carried into the
art of the time with greater realization.
'Idle inference imist not be made that because nature and
the antique came to be studied in Early Renaissance times
that therefore religion was neglected. It was not. It still
held strong, and though with the Renaissance there came
about a strange mingling of crime and corruption, xstheti-
cism and immorality, yet the Church was never abandoned
for an hcuir. \\'hen enlightenment came, people began to
doubt the spiritual power of the Papacy. They did not
cringe to it so servilely as before. Religion was not violently
embraced as in the Middle Ages, but there was no revolt.
The Church held the power and was still the patron of art.
The painter's subjects extended over nature, the antique, the
fable, allegory, history, portraiture ; but the religious sub-
ject was not neglected. P'ully three-quarters of all the fif-
teenth-century painting was d(jne for the Church, at her
command, and for her purposes.
But art was not so wdKjlly pietistic as in the Cothic age.
The study of nature and the antitjue materialized painting
somewhat. The outside world drew the painter's eyes, and
the beauty of the religious subject and its sentiment were
somewhat slurred for the beauty of natural appearances.
There was some hjss of religious power, but religion had
much to lose. In the fifteenth century it was still domi-
nant.
6o
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
XNOWLEDGE OF THE ANTIQUE AND NATURE: The revival
of antique learning came about in real earnest during this
period. The scholars set themselves the task of restoring
the polite learning of ancient Greece, studying coins and
marbles, collecting manuscripts, founding libraries and
schools of philosophy. The wealthy nobles, Palla Strozzi,
Fin. 27. — KOTTrCEI.I.I. CORONATION OF MADONNA. I'FFrZI.
the Albizzi, the Medici, and the Dukes of Urbino, encouraged
it. In 1440 the Greek was taught in five cities. Immedi-
ately afterward, with Constantinople falling into the hands
of the Turks, came an influx of Greek scholars into Italy.
Then followed the invention of printing and the age of dis-
covery on land and sea. Not the antique alone but the nat-
ural were being pried into by the spirit of inquiry. Botany,
geology, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, anatomy, law, lit-
ITALIAN rAlNTlN'C. 6l
cralurc — nothini;' sctnicii to csrapr the kmi vyc of the lime.
Knowledge was being accuniiilateil froni every soiiree, and
the arts were all rellecting it.
The influence of the newly discovered classic marbles
upon painting was not so great as is usually supposed. The
painters stmlied them, but ilid not imitate them. Occasion-
ally in such men as ISotticelli and Mantegna we see a follow-
ing of sculpturesque example — a taking of details and even
of whole figures — but the general effect of the antique mar-
bles was to impress the painters with the idea that nature
was at the bottom of it all They turned to the earth not
only to study form and feature, but to learn perspective,
light, shadow, color — in short, the technical features of art.
True, religion was the chief subject, but nature and the an-
tique were used to give it setting. All the fifteenth-century
painting shows nature study, force, character, sincerity ; but
it does not show elegance, grace, or the full complement of
color. The Early Renaissance was the promise of great
things ; the High Renaissance was the fulfilment.
FLORENTINE SCHOOL: The Florentines were draughtsmen
more than colorists. The chief medium was fresco on the
walls of buildings, and architectural necessities often dic-
tated the form of compositions. Distemper in easel pict-
ures was likewise used, and oil-painting, though known,
was not extensively employed until the last quarter of the
century. In technical knowledge and intellectual grasp
Florence was at this time the leader and drew to her many
artists from neighboring schools. Masaccio (1401 ?-i428 ?)
was the first great nature student of the Early Renaissance,
though his master, Masolino (1383-1447), had given proof
positive of severe nature study in bits of modelling, in
drapery, and in portrait heads. Masaccio, however, seems
the first to have gone into it thoroughly and to have
grasped nature as a whole. His mastery of form, his
plastic compositi(jn, his free, broad folds of drapery, and his
62
IIISTOKV OF PAINTING.
knowledge of light and perspective, all placed him in the
front rank of fifteenth-century painters. Though an exact
student he was not a literalist. He had a large artistic
Fir,. 28. — GUlRLANLlAjO. Tf-IE \'l SIT.VTION. I.OU\'RE.
sense, a breadth of view, and a comprehensi(jn of nature as
a mass that Michael Angelo and Raphael did not disdain
to follow. He was not a pietist, and there was no great
religious feeling m his work. Dignified truthful appear-
ance was his creed, and in this he was possibly influenced
by Uonatello the sculptor.
He came early in the century and died early, but his con-
temporaries did not continue the advance from where
he carried it. There was wavering all along the line.
Some from lack of genius could not equal him, others took
ITALIAN I'AINTINO, Gj
up nature with iiulfcisit)n, and others chmj^ fondly to the
,i;oUl-fnibossi.'d ornaments and nililrd halos of the past.
Paolo Uccello (1,^07 ?-i475), Andrea Castagno (1590-1457),
Benozzo Gozzoli (14J0 ?-i4()7 ?), Baldovinetti (1427-1499),
Antonio del Pollajuolo (1420-1498), Cosimo Rosselli (7439-
1507), can hardly Ik- kiokcd upon as improvements upon
the \'ounn- leader. 'The hrst real successor of Masaceio
was his contemporary, and possihiy his pupil, the monk Fra
Filippo Lippi (i4o()-i469). He was a master of color and
li,L;ht-ani_l-shaele tor his time, though in composition and
commanil of hue he did not reach up to Masaceio. He was
among the first of the painters to take the individual faces
of those about him as models for his sacred characters, and
clothe them in contemporary costume. Piety is not very
pronounced in any of his works, though he is not without
imagination and feeling, and there is in his women a charm
of sweetness. His tendency was to materialize the sacred
characters.
With Filippino (1457 ?-iso4), Botticelli (1446-1510), and
Ghirlandajo (1449-1494) we find a degree of imagination,
culture, and independence not surpassed by any of the
Early Florentines. Filippino modelled his art upon that of
his father, Fra Filippo, and was influenced by Botticelli.
He was the weakest of the trio, without being by any
means a weak man. On the contrary, he was an artist of
fine ability, much charm and tenderness, and considerable
style, but not a great deal of original force, though occasion-
ally doing forceful things. Purity in his type and graceful
sentiment in pose and feature seem more characteristic of
his work. Botticelli, even, was not so remarkable for his
strength as for his culture, and an individual way of looking
at things. He was a pupil of Fra Filippo, a man imbued with
the religious feeling of Dante and Savonarola, a learned
student of the antique and one of the first to take subjects
from it, a severe nature student, and a painter of much
64
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
r.^p-i
technical skill. Religion, classicism, and nature all met
in his work, but the mingling was not perfect. Religious
feeling and melancholy warped it. His willow}' figures, deli-
cate and refined in drawing, are more passionate than pow-
erful, more individual than comprehensive, but the)' are
nevertheless very attractive in their tenderness and grace.
Without being so original or so attractive an artist as
Botticelli, his contemporary, Ghirlandajo, was a stronger
one. His strength came more from assimilation than from
invention. He combined in his work all the art learning
of his time. He drew well, handled drapery simply and
beautifully, was a good
composer, and, for
Florence, a good col-
orist. In addition, his
temperament was ro-
bust, his style digni-
fied, even grand, and
his execution wonder-
fully free. He was the
most important of the
fifteenth-century tech-
nicians, without hav-
ing an}' peculiar dis-
tinction or originalit}',
and in sjMte of being
rather prosaic at times.
Verrocchio (1435-
1488) was more of a
sculptor than a painter,
but in his studio were
three celebrated pupils
— Perugino, I>eonardo da Vinci, and Lorenzo di Credi — who
were half-way between the Early and the High Renaissance.
Only one of them, Leonardo, can be classed among the
-FRANLESCA.
DUk'E OF
ITALIAN I'AINriNC. 65
Higli RenaissaiKT nu'ii. rcruniiio lH-l(in.i;s to the Uni-
hriaii school, and Lorenzo di Credi (i.i5o-i5;,7), tlioii^li
KlorciUim.-, never oiit.urew llu- lil'teeiitli eenUiry. He was
a pure painter, with nnieh feeliiiij;, Inil weak at times. I lis
ilrawin;;" was .u'ood, but Ilis paintinj;' lacked force, and lie was
too pallid in llesh color. There is nuich detail, stnd)', and
considt'rahle ijracc about his work, l)nt little of strength.
Piero di Cosimo (1462-1 52 1) was fond of ni)'th(jl()>;-ical and
classical stuilies, was soniewdiat fantastic in conipositioii,
pleasant in color, and rather distinguished in landscape
backgrounds. His work strikes one as eccentric, and eccen-
tricity was the strong characteristic of the man.
UMBRIAN AND PEKUGIAN SCHOOLS: At the beginning of the
lifteenth centur\- the oki Siennese school founded by Duccio
and the Lorenzetti was in a state of decline. It had been
remarkable for intense sentiment, and just what effect this
sentiment of the old Siennese school hatl upon the painters
of the neighboring Umbrian sch(j(jl of the early fifteenth
centurv is matter of speculation with historians. It must
have had some, though the early painters, like Ottaviano
Nelli, do not show it. That which afterward became known
as the Umbrian sentiment probably first appeared in the
work of Niccolo da Folig'no (1430 ?-i5o2), who was probably
a pupil of Benozzo Gozzoli, who was, in turn, a pupil of Fra
Angelico. That would indicate Florentine influence, but
there were many influences at work in this upper-valley
country. Sentinient had been prevalent enough all through
Central Italian painting during the Gothic age — more so at
Sienna than elsewhere. With the Renaissance Florence
rather forsook sentiment for precision of forms and equi-
librium of groups ; but the Umbrian towns being more pro-
vincial, held fast to their sentiment, their detail, and their
gold ornamentation. Their influence upon Florence was
slight, but the influence of Florence upon them was con-
siderable. The larger city drew the provincials its way to
5
66
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
learn the new methods. The result was a group of Umbro-
Florentine painters, combining some up-country sentiment
wifh Florentine technic. Gentile da Fabriano, Niccolo da
F'oligno, Bonfiglio (1425 ?-i496 ?), and Fiorenzo di Lorenzo
(1444 ?-i52o) were of this mixed character.
The most positive in methods among the early men was
Fir,. 30. — ^IGN'ORELI.I. THE CURSE (DETML). ORVIETO.
Piero della Francesca (1420 ?-i492). Umbrian born, but
Florentine trained, he became more scientific than senti-
mental, and excelled as a craftsman. He knew drawing,
perspective, atmosphere, light-and-shade in a way that
rather foreshadowed Leonardo da Vinci. From working
in the Umbrian country his influence upon his fellow-
Umbrians was large. It showed directly in Signorelli
(1441 ?-iS23), whose master he was, and whose style he
ITALIAN I'AINTINC.. 6/
prohably furnu'd, Siniiorclli was Unibriaii liorn, like I'ici'ii,
Inil there was not imuh of the I'liibriaii seiitiineiit about
liini. He was a (b-aunhtsman ami threw his streiiirtli in
line, pnnlucin;;- atliletic, s(|uare-sh()ul(lereil lij^urcs in violent
aetion, with eomplicated foreshorteninjjjs ([uite astonishing^.
The most darinsi; man of his time, he was a master in anat-
onu', eoniiH)sition, n\otion. There was nothing select about
his t\'pe, and nothini;' eharmins;' about his painting'. His
color was hot and coarse, his lights hn"id, his shallows brick
reil. He was, however, a master-draughtsman, and a man
of large conceptions and great strength. Melozzo da Forli
( i4,;8-i494), of whom little is known, was another pupil of
Tiero, ami Giovanni Santi (1435 ?- 1494), t'^^; father of
Raphael, was probably intlucnced by both of these last
named.
■|'he true descent of the Umbrian sentiment was through
Foligno and Bonfiglio to Perugino (1446-15 24). Signorelli'
and Perugino seem opposed to each other in their art. The
tirst was the forerunner of Michael Angelo, the second was
the master of Raphael ; and the difference betw^een Michael
Angelo and Raphael was, in a less varied degree, the differ-
ence between Signorelli and Perugino. The one showed
Florentine line, the other Uml)rian sentiment and color. It
is in Perugino that we find the old religious feeling. Fer-
vor, tenderness, and devotion, with soft eyes, delicate feat-
ures, and pathetic looks characterized his art. The figure
was slight, graceful, and in pose sentimentally inclined to
one side. The head was almost affectedly placed on the
shoulders, and the round olive face was full of wistful ten-
derness. This Perugino type, used in all his paintings, is
well described by 'Paine as a " body Ijelonging to the Re-
naissance containing a soul that belonged to the Middle
Ages." The sentiment was more purely human, however,
than in such a painter, for instance, as Fi^a Angelico. Re-
ligion still held with Perugincj and the Umbrians, but even
68 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
with them it was becoiniug materialized by the beauty of
the world about them.
As a technician Perugino was excellent. There was no
FIG- 31. — I'F.RrGlNO. M.AUONNA, SAINTS, AND ANGELS. LOL'VKE.
dramatic fire and fury about him. The composition was
simple, with graceful figures in repose. The coloring was
rich, and there were many brilliant effects obtained by the
use of oils. He was among the first of his school to use
that medium. His friend and fellow-worker, Pinturricchio
{1454-1513), did not use oils, but was a superior man in
fresco. In type and sentiment he was rather like Perugino,
in composition a little e-\travagant and huddled, in land-
scape backgrounds quite original and inventive. He never
was a serious rival of Perugino, though a more varied and
interesting painter. Perugino's best pupil, after Raphael,
ITALIAN I'AINTINC. ^O
was Lo Spagna (? is/iO?), ulio IoIIomtiI his iiuisUt's st)'lc
until llic High Rt'iiaissaiuc, when he bnanic a lolhiwcr
(if Raphael.
SCHOOLS OF FEERARA AND BOLOGNA; The painters of Fei-
rara, in the fifteenth eentur)-, seemed to have relied upon
Padua for their teaehing'. 'I'he best of the early men was
Cosimo Tura (1425 ?-i49S ?), \\ho slujwed the Patkian inllu-
enee of Stpiareione in anatomical insistences, coarse joints
inl'inite detail, and fantastic ornamentation. He was prob-
ably the foinnler of the school in wdiich Francesco Cossa
(ll. 1450-1470), a //(i/'f and strong, if somewhat morbid
painter, Ercole di Giulio Grandi ('-1531), and Lorenzo Costa
(1460 ?-i5j6) were the princi|xd masters. Cossa and Cirandi,
It seems, afterward removed to IJologna, and it was prob-
ably their move that induced Lorenzo Costa t(.i follow them.
In that way the Ferrarese school became somewhat compli-
cated with the Bolognese school, and is confused in its his-
tijry to this day. Costa was not unlikely the real founder,
or, at the least, the strongest influencer of the Bolognese
school. He was a painter of a rugged, manly type, afterward
tempered by Southern influences to softness and sentiment.
This \vas the result of Paduan methods meeting at Bologna
with Umbrian sentiment.
The Perugino type and influence had found its way to
Bologna, and shoAved in the work of Francia (1450-151S),
a contemporary and fellow-worker with Costa. Though
trained as a goldsmith, and learning painting in a different
school, Francia, as regards his sentiment, belongs in the
same category with Perugino. Even his subjects, types,
and treatment were, at times, more Umbrian than Bolog-
nese. He was not so profound in feeling as Perugino, but
at times he appeared loftier in conception. His color was
usually rich, his drawing a bttle sharp at first, as showing
the goldsmith's hand, the surfaces smooth, the detail elabo-
rate. Later on, his work had a Raphaelestiue tinge, show-
70
IIISTOKV OF PAINTING.
ing perhaps the influence of that rising master. It is prob-
able that Francia at first was influenced by Costa's methods,
and it is quite certain that he in turn influenced Costa in
the matter of refined drawing and sentiment, though Costa
always adhered to a certain detail and ornament coming
from the north, and a landscape background that is peculiar
to himself, and yet reminds one of Pinturricchio's land-
scapes. These tw(j men, Francia and Costa, were the Peru-
gino and Pinturriccliio of the Ferrara-Bolognese school, and
the most important painters in that school.
FIG. 32. — SCHOr.l. OF FRANCI.
AND CHn.D.
THE LOMBARD SCHOOL : The designation of the Lombard
school is rather a vague one in the history of painting, and
is used by historians to cover a number of isolated schools
ITALrAN t'AINTINC. 7^
or moil in the l.diniiardy ri'nioii. In the fil'tccnth lentuiy
these sehools counted for hltle either in men or in works.
The principal aetivit\- was aliout Milan, which drew painters
from Hrescia, \'incen/.a, and elsewdiere to form wliat is Icnown
as tile .Mihmese school. Vincenzo Foppa (II. 1455-1492), of
Hrescia, ani.1 afterward at Milan, was probably the foinider
of this Milanese school. Mis paintinjj; is of rather a harsh,
exactin;;' nature, and points to the influence of I'adua, at
which place he perhaps yot liis early art training. Borg'O-
gnone ('-1523) is set down as his pupil, a painter of much
sentiment and spiritual feeling. The school was afterward
greatly inffueneed by the example of Leonardo da Vinci, as
will be shown further on.
PRINCIPAL WORKS: Fi.OKENTINES — Masaccio, frescns in ISran-
c.icci Chapel Cai'iiiitie Flnrence (the series conipleLcil l->y Filijipiin') ;
Masolino, frescos Cliurch and Baptistery Casligiione d' Olona ; Paolo
Uccello, frescos S. M. Novella, equestrian portrait Duonio Fhncnce,
battle-pieces in Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Andrea Castagno, heroes
and siiivls Utiizi, aUar-piece Acad. Florence, equestrian portrait Du(.)nio
Florence ; Benozzo Gozzoli, Francesco Montefalco, Magi Ricardi palace
Florence, frescos Canipo Santo Pisa j Baldovinetti, Portico of the An-
nunziata Florence, altar-pieces Ufiizi ; Antonio PoUajuolo, Hercules
Uffizi, St. Sebastian Pitti and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Cosimo Rosselli, frescos
S. Ambrogio Florence, Sistine Chapel Rome, Madonna Uthzi ; Fra
Filippo, frescos Cathedral Prato, altar-pieces Florence Acad., Uffizi, Pitti
and Berlin Gals., Nat. Gal. Lon.; Filippino, frescos Carmine Florence,
Caraffa Chapel Minerva Rome, S. ^L Novella and Acad. Florence, S.
Domenico Bologna, easel pictures in Pitti, Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon. Berlin
Mus., Old Pinacothek Munich ; Botticelli, frescos Sistine Chapel Rome,
Spring and Coronation Florence Acad., Venus, Calumu)', Madonnas
Uffizi, Pitti, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, etc. ; Ghirlandajo, frescos Sistine
Chapel Rome, S. Trinita F'lorence, S. M. Novella, Palazzo Vecchio, altar-
pieces Uffizi and .'Vcad. Florence, Visitation Louvre ; Verrocchio, Bap-
tism of Clirist Acad. Florence ; Lorenzo di Credi, Nativity Acad. Flor-
ence, Madonnas Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon., Ilcdy Family Borghese Gal.
Rome; Piero di Cosimo, Perseus and Andromeda Uffizi, Procris Nat.
Gal. Lon., Venus and Mars Berlin Gal.
TJ.MBRIANS — Ottaviano Nelli, altar-piece S. M. Nuovo Gubbio, St.
72 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Augustine legends S. Agostino Gubbio ; Niccol6 da Foligno, altar-piece
S. Niccoli Foligno ; Bonfigli, frescos Palazzo Comniunale, altar-pieces
Acad. Perugia ; Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, many pictures Acad. Perugia, Ma-
donna Berlin Gal.; Piero della Francesca, frescos Comniunila and Hos-
pital Borgo San Sepolcro, San Francesco Arezzo, Cliapel of tire Relicts Ri-
mini, portraits Uffizi, pictures Nat. Gal. Lon.; Signorelli, frescos Cathedral
Orvieto, Sistine Rome, Palazzo Petrucci Sienna, altar-pieces Arezzo, Cor-
tona, Perugia, pictures Pitti, Uffizi, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Me-
lozzo da Forli, angels St. Peter's Rome, frescos Vatican, pictures Berlin
and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Giovanni Santi, Annunciation Milan, Pieta Urbino,
Madonnas Berlin, Nat. Gal. Lon., S. Croce Fano ; Perugino, frescos
Sistine Rome, Crucifixion S. ]M. Maddalena Florence, Sala del Canibio
Perugia, altar-pieces Pitti, Fano, Cremona, many pictures in European
galleries ; Pinturricchio, frescos S. M. del Popolo, Appartamento Borgo
Vatican, Bufolini Chapel Aracoeli Rome, Duomo Library Sienna, altar-
pieces Perugia and Sienna Acads., Pitti, Louvre ; Lo Spagna, Madonna
Lower Church Assisi, frescos at Spoleto, Turin, Perugia, Assisi.
Ferr.irese and Boi.ognese — Cosimo Tura, allar-i)icces Berlin Mus,
Bergamo, Museo Correr Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Francesco Cossa
altar-pieces S. Petronio and Acad. Bologna, Dresden Gal.; Grandi, St
George Corsini Pal. Rome, several canvases Constabili Collection Ferrara
Lorenzo Costa, frescos S. Giacomo Maggiore. altar-pieces S. Petronio
S. Giovanni in Monte and Acad. Bologna, also Louvre, Berlin, and Nat
Gal. Lon.; Francia, altar-pieces S. Giacomo Maggiore, S. Martino Mag
giore, and many altar-pieces in Acad. Bologna, Annunciation Brera Milan
Rose Garden Munich, Pieta Nat. Gal. Lon., Scappi Portrait Uffizi, Bap'
tism Dresden.
Lombards — Foppa, altar-pieces S. Maria di Castcllo Savona, Bor-
romeo Col. Milan. Carmine Brescia, panels Brera Milan; Borgognone,
altar-pieces Certosa of Pavia, Churcli of Melegnaiio, S. Ambrogio, Am-
brosian Lib., Brera Milan, Nat. Gal. Lon.
CHAPTER VII.
ITALIAN PAIN'TING.
EARLY KKNAISSANCE — 140O-150O — L ( INII ^fUED.
Rooks Rfoommexdi'D : Those on Italian art Ix'forc nicn-
tii_infd ; also consult the General Bibliography (page w.)
PADUAN SCHOOL: It was at I'adua in the north that the in-
fluence of the classic marbles made itself strongly apparent.
Umbria remained true to the religious sentiment, Florence
engageil itself largely with nature study and technical prob-
lems, introducing here and there draperies and poses that
showed knowledge of ancient sculpture, but at Padua much
of the classic in drapery, figures, and architecture seems
to have been taken directly from the rediscovered antique
or the modern bronze.
The early men of the school were hardly great enough to
call for mention. During the fourteenth century there was
some Ciiotto influence felt — that painter having been at
Padua working in the Arena Chapel. Later on there was
a slight influence from Gentile da Fabriano and his fellow-
worker Vittore Pisano, of Verona. But these influences
seem to have died out and the real direction of the school
in the early fifteenth century was given by Francesco
Squarcione (1394-1474). He was an enlightened man, a
student, a collector and an admirer of ancient sculpture,
and though no great painter himself he taught an anatomi-
cal statuesque art, based on ancient marbles and nature,
to many pupils.
74
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Squarcione's work has perished, but his teaching was re-
flected in the work of his great pupil Andrea Mantegna
(1431-1506). Yet Mantegna never received the full com-
I 1'-.. 33. — :i \ o iiM ( I I (1 1 I 11 J [ \ii\
plement of his knowledge from Squarcione. He was of an
observing nature and probably studied Paolo Uccello and
Fra Filippo, some of whose works were then in Paduan
edifices. He gained color knowledge from the Venetian
P>ellinis, who lived at Padua at one time and who were
connected with Mantegna by marriage. But the sculpt-
urescjue side of his art came from Scpiarcione, from a study
of the antique, and fr(.)ni a deeper study of Donatello, whose
bronzes to this day are to be seen within and without the
Paduan Duomo of S. Antonio.
The sculpturesque is characteristic of Mantegna's work.
His people are hard, rigid at times, immovable human
beings, not so nnicli turnetl to stone as turned to bronze —
the bronze of Donatello, There is little sense of motion
ITALIAN I'AINTING. 75
about them. The Hnure is sIkli|) and harsh, the thapery,
evidently stiulieil Iroin srul|)liire, is "line)'," and the ar-
chiiioloyy isiilten more seit'iililic than arlistie. Manlej^na
was not, lio\ve\'er, entirely dex'oted to the senlptiiresiine.
He was one o( the se\erest nattn'e students uf the Jiarly
Renaissanee, knew about nature, and carried it out in
meire e\actin>; detail than was perhaps well for his art.
In addition he was a master of liy;ht-and-shade, understood
eompt)sition, spaee, color, atmosphere, and was as scientific
in perspective as I'iero della l''rancesea. There is stillness
in his ligures but nevertheless great truth and character.
The t\)rms are noble, even grand, and for invention and
imagination thev were never, in his tiiiie, carried further
or higher. He was little of a sentimentalist or an emo-
tionalist, not much of a brush man or a colorist, but as
a draughtsman, a creator of noble forms, a man <jf power,
he stooti second to none in the century.
Of Stpiarcione's other pupils Pizzolo (II. 1470) was the
most promising, but died early. Marco Zoppo (1445-1498)
seems to have followed the Paduan formula of hardness, dry-
ness, and exacting detail. He was possibly influenced by
Cosimo Tura, and in turn influenced somewhat the Ferrara-
Bolognese school. Mantegna, however, was the greatest
of the scho(jl, and his influence was far-reaching. It af-
fected the school of Venice in matters of drawing, beside
influencing the Lombard and ^'eronese schools in their
beginnings.
SCHOOLS OF VERONA AND VICENZA : Artistically Verona be-
longed with the Venetian provinces, because it was largely
an echo of Venice except at the very start. Vittore Pisano
(1380-1456), called Pisanello, was the earliest painter of
note, but he was not distinctly Veronese in his art. He
was medallist and painter both, worked with Clentile da
Fabriano in the Ducal Palace at Venice and elsewhere, and
his art seems to have an affinity with that of his companion.
1^
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Liberals da Verona (1451-1536?) was at first a miniaturist,
but afterward developed a larger style based on a following
of Mantegna's work, with some Venetian influences showing
in the coloring and backgrounds. Francesco Bonsignori
(1455-15 19) was of the Verona school, but established
himself later at Mantua and was under the Mantegna in-
fluence. His style at first was rather severe, but he after-
ward developed much ability in portraiture, historical
work, animals, and architectural features. Francesco
Caroto (1470-1546), a pupil of Liberale, really belongs to the
FIG. 34. — B. \-lVARIKI, MADONNA AND CHILD. TURIN.
next century — the High Renaissance — but his early works
show his education in Veronese and Paduan methods.
In the school of Vicenza the only master of much note
ITALIAN I'AIN'riNC. 77
ill this Karly Renaissaiuc time was Bartolommeo Montagna
(1450 ?-i5 J3), a painter in both oil and li'esi'd nl imicli
severity aiul at times yraiuleur cil style. In drawing; lie
was inlliieneed by JSIantegna, in eomposition aiul colciring
he showeil a study of (liovanni ISellini and Cirpaccio.
VENETIAN LIFE AND ART: The conditions of art produc-
tion in X'enice during the Early Renaissance were cjuite dif-
ferent from those in Florence or Umbria. By the disposi-
tion of her people ^'enice was not a learned or devout city.
Religion, though the chief subject, was not the chief spirit
of Venetian art. Christianity was accepted by the Venetians,
but with no feveretl enthusiasm. The Church was strong
enough there to defy the Papacy at one time, and yet relig-
ion with the people was perhaps more of a civic function
or a duty than a spiritual worship. It was sincere in its
way, and the early painters painted its subjects with honesty,
but the \'enetians were much too proud and worldly mind-
ed to take anything very seriously except their own splen-
dor and their own power.
Again, the Venetians were not humanists or students of
the revived classic. They housed manuscripts, harbored
exiled humanists, received the influx of Greek scholars after
the fall of Constantinople, and later the celebrated Aldine
press was established in Venice ; but, for all that, classic
learning was not the fancy of the Venetians. They made
no quarrel over the relative merits of Plato and Aristotle,
dug up no classic marbles, had no revival of learning in a
Florentine sense. They were merchant princes, winning
wealth by commerce and expending it lavishly in beautifying
their island home. Not to attain great learning, but to revel
in great splendor, seems to have been their aim. Life in the
sovereign city of the sea was a worthy existence in itself.
And her geographical and political position aided her pros-
perity. Unlike Florence she was not torn by contending
princes within and foreign foes without — at least not to her
78
HISTORY OF PAINTINC;.
harm. She had her wars, but they were generall}' on distant
seas. Popery, Paganism, Despotism, all the convulsions of
Renaissance life threatened but harmed her not. Free and
independent, her kingdom was the sea, and her livelihood
commerce, not agriculture.
The worldly spirit of the Venetian people brought about
a worldly and lu.xurious art. Nothing in the disposition or
FIG. 35. — GIOX'AN.N'I BELLINI. M.ADON'N'A OF SS. GEORGE AND PAUL. \E.MLE ACAD.
education of the Venetians called for the severe or the
intellectual. The demand was for rich decoration that
would please the senses without stimulating the intellect
or firing the imagination to any great extent. Line and
form were not so well suited to them as color — the most
sensuous of all mediums. Color prevailed through Vene-
tian art from the very beginning, and was its distinctive
characteristic.
Where this love of color came from is matter of specula-
ITALIAN I'AINTINC. 79
tion. Some sav out nf W'iR'tian skies and waters, ami,
doubtless, these liad soiiietliinL;' to tin with the N'eiietian
eolor-sense ; but ^'eniee in its eolor was also an example ot
the effeet of eommerei' on art. She was a trader with the
blast from her infane\' — not Constantinople and the li\'/,aii-
tnie 1-last alone, but baek of tliese tlie old ^biluuumedan l-last,
whieh for a thousand vears has east its art in edhirs rather
than in fiu-ms. It was b'astern ornament in mosaics, stuffs,
porcelains, variegated marbles, brought by ship to \'en ice and
located in S. Marco, in Murano, and in 'borcelhi, that hrst
gave the color-impulse to the \'enetians. If b'lorence was
the heir of Rome and its austere classicism, Venice was the
heir of Constantinople and its color-charm. The two great
color spots in Italy at this day are A'enice and Ravenna,
commercial footholds of the Byzantines in Mediajval and
Renaissance days. It may be concluded without error tliat
Venice derived her color-sense and much of her lu.xurious
and material view of life from the East,
THE EARLY VENETIAN PAINTERS; Painting began at Venice
with the fabrication of mosaics and ornamental altar-pieces
of rich gold stucco-work. The " Creek manner " — that is,
the Bvzantine — was practised early in the fifteenth centui"y
by Jacobello del Fiore and Semitecolo, but it did not last
long. Instead of lingering for a hundred years, as at
Florence, it died a natural death in the first half of the fif-
teenth century. Gentile da Fabriano, who was at Venice
about 1420, painting in the Ducal Palace with I'isano as his
assistant, may have brought this about. He taught there in
Venice, was the master of Jacopo Bellini, and if not the
teacher then the infiuencer of the \'ivarinis of INIurani).
There were two of the Vivarinis in the early times, so far as
can be made out, Antonio Vivarini (?-i47o) and Barto-
lommeo Vivarini (fl. 1450-1499), who worked with Johannes
Alemannus, a painter of supposed German birth and training.
They all signed themselves from Murano (an outlying \'e-
So
HISTORY or PAINTING.
netian island), where they were producing church altars and
ornaments with some Paduan influence showing in their
work. They made up the Muranese school, though this
school was not strongly marked apart either in characteris-
tics or subjects from the Venetian school, of which it was, in
fact, a part.
Bartolommeo was the best of the group, and contended
long time in rivalry with the Bellinis at Venice, but toward
1470 he fell away and died comparatively forgotten. Luigi
Vivarini(fl. 1461-1503) was the latest of this family, and with
FIG. 36.-
■\7^■|■ACC10. I'RESRNTA'irO.N (UETAil,). \'ENICR ACAD.
his death the history of the Muranese merges into the Vene-
tian school proper, except as it continues to appear in some
pupils and followers. Of these latter Carlo Crivelli (1430 ?-
ITALIAN PAINTINC. 8l
1493?) was tlic only one of nuicli mark. He apparently
gathered his art from many sourees — ornament and color
from the Vivarini, a lean and withered type from the early
I'aduans under Sipiarcione, architecture from Mantegna,
and a rather repulsive sentiment from the same school. His
faces were contorted and sulk)', his hands and feet stringy,
his drawing rather bad ; but he had a transparent color, beau-
tiful ornamentation and not a little tragic power.
\enetian art practically dates from the Bellinis. They
did not begin where the Vivarini left off. The two families
of painters seem to have started about the same time, worked
along together from like inspirations, and in somewhat of a
similar manner as regards the early men. Jacopo Bellini
(1400 ? -1464 ?) was the pupil of Gentile da Fabriano, and a
painter of considerable rank. His son. Gentile Bellini (1426 ?-
1507), was likewise a painter of ability, and an extremely in-
teresting one on account of his \^enetian subjects painted
with much open-air effect and knowledge of light and atmos-
phere. The younger son, Giovanni Bellini (1428 ?-i5i6), was
the greatest of the family and the true founder of the Vene-
tian school.
About the middle of the fifteenth century the Bellini
family lived at Padua and came in contact with the classic-
realistic art of Mantegna. In fact, Mantegna married Gio-.
vanni Bellini's sister, and there was a mingling of family as
well as of art. There was an influence upon Mantegna of
Venetian color, and upon the Bellinis of Paduan line. The
latter showed in Giovanni Bellini's early work, which was
rather hard, angular in drapery, and anatomical in the
joints, hands, and feet ; but as the century drew to a close
this melted away into the growing splendor of Venetian
color. Giovanni Bellini lived into the sixteenth century,
but never quite attained the rank of a High Renaissance
painter. He had religious feeHng, earnestness, honesty,
simplicity, character, force, knowledge ; but not the full
6
82 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
complement of brilliancy and painter's power. He went
beyond all his contemporaries in technical strength and
color-harmony, and was in fact the epoch-making man of
eariy Venice. Some of his pictures, like the S. Zaccaria Ma-
donna, will compare favorably with any work of any age, and his
landscape backgrounds (see the St. Peter Martyr in the
National Gallery, London) were rather wonderful for the
period in which they were produced.
Of Bellini's contemporaries and followers there were
many, and as a school there was a similarity of style, sub-
ject, and color-treatment carrying through them all, with
individual peculiarities in each painter. After Giovanni
Bellini comes Carpaccio (?-i522 ?), a younger contemporary,
about whose history little is known. He worked with Gen-
tile Bellini, and was undoubtedly influenced by Giovanni
Bellini. In subject he was more romantic and chivalric
than religious, though painting a number of altar-pieces.
The legend was his delight, and his great success, as the
St. Ursula and St. George pictures in Venice still indicate.
He was remarkable for his knowledge of architecture, cos-
tumes, and Oriental settings, put forth in a realistic way,
with much invention and technical ability in the handling
of landscape, perspective, light, and color. There is a truth-
fulness of ap|)earance — an out-of-doors feeling — about his
work that is quite captivating. In addition, the spirit of
his art was earnestness, honesty, and sincerity, and even
the awkward bits of drawing which occasionally appeared
in his work served to add to the general naive effect of
the whole.
Cima da Conegliano (1460 ?-i5i7 ?) was probably a pupil
of Giovanni Bellini, with some Garpaccio influence about
him. He was the best of the immediate followers, none
of whom came up to the master. They were trammelled
somewhat by being educated in distemper work, and then
midway in their careers changing to the oil medium, that
ITALIAN I'AINTINC..
83
mcHliuni liavin;^- been iLitroiUiced into A'ciiicc by Antonclli)
da Messina in i 47;,. C'inia's sulijeets were largely half-lenj^rlli
madonnas, >;iven with slroiii; <|ualiUes of light-aud-shade
LNk'.N'OWX
and color. He was not a threat originator, though a man of
ability. Catena (?-r53r) had a wide reputation in his dav,
but it came more from a smooth finish and pretty acces-
sories than from creative power. He imitated Bellini's
style so well that a number of his pictures pass for works by
the master even to this day. Later he followed Giorgione
and Carpaccio. A man possessed of knowledge, he seemed
to have no original propelling purpose behind him. That
was largely the make-up of the other men of the school,
Basaiti (1490-1521 ?), Previtali (i47o?-i525 ?), Bissolo (1464-
S4 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
1528), Rondinelli (1440 ?-i5oo?), Diana (?-i5oo ?), Mansueti
(fl. 1500).
Antonello da Messina (1444 ?-i493), though Sicilian born,
is properly classed with the Venetian school. He obtained
a knowledge of Flemish methods probably from Flemish
painters or pictures in Italy (he never was a pupil of Jan
van Eyck, as Vasari relates, and probably never saw Flan-
ders), and introduced the use of oil as a medium in the
Venetian school. His early work was Flemish in character,
and was very accurate and minute. His late work showed
the influence of the Bellinis. His counter-influence upon
Venetian portraiture has never been quite justly estimated.
That fine, e.xact, yet powerful work, of which the Doge
Loredano by Bellini, in the National Gallery, London, is a
type, was perhaps brought about by an amalgamation of
Flemish and Venetian methods, and Antonello was perhaps
the means of bringing it about. He was an excellent, if
precise, portrait-painter.
PRINCIPAL WORKS: Paduans— Andrea Mantegna, Eremitani Pa-
dua, Madonna uf S. -Xeno Verona, St. Sebastian Vienna Mus.. St.
George Venice Acad., Camera di Sposi Castello di Corte Mantua, Ma-
donna and Allegories Louvre, Scipio Summer Autumn Nat. Gal. Lon.;
Pizzoli (with Mantegna), Eremitani Padua ; Marco Zoppo frescos Casa
Colonna Bologna, Madonna Berlin Gal.
Veronese and Vicemtine Painters — Vittore Pisano, St. Anthony
and George Nat. Gal. Lon., St. George S. Anastasia Verona; Liberale
da Verona, miniatures Duomo Sienna, St. Sebastian Brera Milan. Ma-
donna Berlin ^{us., other works Duomo and Gal. Vercjna ; Bonsignori,
S. Bernardino and Gal. Verona, Mantua, and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Caroto, In
S. Tommaso, S. f^iorgio, S. Caterina and Gal. Verona, Dresden and
Frankfort Gals.; Montagna, Madonnas Brera, Venice Acad., Bergamo.
Berlin, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre.
Venetians— Jacobello del Fiore and Semitecolo, all attributions
doubtful ; Antonio Vivarini and Johannes Alemannus, together altar-
pieces Venice Acad., S. Zaccaria Venice ; Antonio alone, Adoration of
Kings Berlin Gal.; Bartolommeo Vivarini, Madonna Bologna Gal.
(with Antonio), altar-pieces SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Frari, Venice ; Luigi
ITALIAN PAINTINC. 8$
Vivarini, Mndoniui llcilin (lal.. iMaii ami Acail. \'cnicc ; Carlo Crivelli,
Madonnas and allai-iiiocos liicra, Nat. (lal. l,nn., Lalcian, iV-rlin <ials,;
Jacopo Bellini, Cnicitixiuii Voiuna (lal., SkcU li-houk lirit. Miis. ; Gentile
Bellini, Cl!|;an Uoors S, Marc<>, I'mccssioii ami Miracle uf Cross Acad.
\'cnicc. Si. Maik Ihoia ; Giovanni Bellini, many [licUircs in Kurojtean
L^allcries, .Vcad.. I''raii. S. Zaccaiia SS. (imvaniii c Faolu Venice; Car-
paccio. I'lOicnlalion and L^sida incUiics Acad,, St. George and St. Je-
rome S. (iiL'ryioda Schiavone Venice. St. Stc[>lien Berlin (jal.; Cima,
altar-pieces S. Maria dell Orte, S, Giovanni in Ilragora, Acad. \'enice,
Louvre, Uerlin, Dresden, Munich, \'ieinia, and ullier galleries ; Catena,
Altar-pieces S. Sinieone, S. M. Mater Domini, SS. Giovanni e Paolo,
Acad. Venice, Dresden, and in Nat. Clal. Lon. (tlie Warrior and Horse
attributed to "'School of ISellini"); Basaiti, Venice Acad. Nat. Gal.
Lon., \*icnna, and Berlin (ials. ; Previtali, altar-pieces S. Spirito Ber-
gamo, Brera, Berlin, and Dresden Gals., Nat. Gal. Lon., Venice Acad.;
BissolOj Resurrection Berlin Gal., S. Caterina Venice Acad. ; Rondinelli,
two pictures Palazzo Doria Rome, Lloly Family (No. 6) Louvre (attrihuted
to Giovanni Bellini) ; Diana, Altar-pieces Venice Acad. ; Mansueti, large
pictures Venice Acad.; Antonella da Messina, Portraits Louvre, Berlin
and Nat. Gal. Lon., Crucilixion Antwerp Mus.
CHAPTER VIII.
ITALIAN PAINTING.
THE HIGH RENAISSANCE — I5OO-1600.
Books Recommended : Those on Italian art before men-
tioned, and also, Berenson, Lorenzo Lofto ; Clement, Michel
Aih^e, L. da Vinci, RapJiael : Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Titian ;
same authors, A'<?/>/irtc/; Qnxam.^ Micliael Angela ; Meyer, Cor-
rei^X'fl '' Muvilz, Leonanlo tla rinci; FassuvAni, /?aj>liael ; Pater,
Stiiilics in Hislory of Renaissance ; Phillips, Titian: Reumont,
Andrea del Sarto ; Ricci, Corrci^i^io ; Richter, Leonardo di
I'inci: Ridolfi, Vita di Paolo Cagliari Veronese; Springer,
Rafael i/nd Michel Angela ; Symonds, Michael Angela ; Taine,
Ilalv — Florence and J^enice.
THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT: The word "Renaissance"
has a broader meaning than its strict etymology would
imply. It was a " new birth," but something more than
the revival of Greek learning and the study of nature en-
tered into it. It was the grand consummation of Italian
intellige"ce in many departments — the arrival at maturity
of the Christian trained mind tempered by the philoso-
phy of Greece, and the knowledge of the actual world.
Fully aroused at last, the Italian intellect became incjuisi-
tivc, inventive, scientific, skeptical — yes, treacherous, immor-
al, polluted. It questioned all things, doubted where it
pleased, saturated itself with crime, corruption, and sensual-
ity, yet bowed at the shrine of the beautiful and knelt at the
altar of Christianity.' It is an illustration of the contra-
dictions that may exist when the intellectual, the religious,
ITALIAN I'AINTINC.
S7
aiul tlu- mummI aiT l)niu^lil tom-lluT, willi tlu' intcllccUKil in
pi'ci.UiiiiiiiaiH'c.
And that kern Rcnai^sanrc intellect made swift pro)^-
ress. It renuiilelled the |ilnliiso|ili\' iif (Ireece, and
ust'il its literatmx- as a mould fnr its nwn. It developed
Roman law and introduced modern science. The world
Fir,. 38,-
\rrror OMMRi"). iir'^crni' from cro?^. iitti.
without ami the workl within were rediscovered. Land
and sea, starry sky and planetary system, were fixed upon
the chart, ^[an himself, the animals, the planets, organic
and inorganic life, the small things of the earth gave np
their secrets. Inventions utilized all classes of products,
commerce flourished, free cities were builded, universities
arose, learning spread itself on the pages of newdy invented
books of print, and, perhaps, greatest of all, the arts arose
on strong wings of life to the very highest altitude.
88 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
For the moral side of the Renaissance intellect it had its
tastes and refinements, as shown in its high quality of art ;
but it also had its polluting and degrading features, as shown
in its political and social life. Religion was visibly weakening
though the ecclesiastical still held strong. People were
forgetting the faith of the early days, and taking up with
the material things about them. They were glorifying the
human and e.xalting the natural. The story of Clreece was
being repeated in Italy. And out of this new worship
came jewels of rarity and beauty, but out of it also came
faithlessness, corruption, vice.
Strictly speaking, the Renaissance had been accomplished
before the year 1500, but so great was its impetus that, in
the arts at least, it extended half-way through the sixteenth
century. Then it began to fail through exhaustion.
MOTIVES AND METHODS: The religious subject still held
with the painters, but this subject in High-Renaissance
days did not carry with it the religious feeling as in Gothic
days. Art had grown to be something else than a teacher
of the Bible. In the painter's hands it had come to mean
beauty for its own sake — a picture beautiful for its form
and color, regardless of its theme. This was the teaching
of antique art, and the study of nature but increased the
belief. A new love had arisen in the outer and visible
world, and when the Church called for altar-pieces the pain-
ters painted their new love, christened it with a religious
title, and handed it forth in the name of the old. Thus art
began to free itself from Church domination and to live
as an independent beauty. The general motive, then, of
painting during the High Renaissance, though apparently
religious from the subject, and in many cases still religious
in feeling, was largely to show the beauty of form or color,
in which religion, the antique, and the natural came in as
modifying elements.
In technical methods, though extensive work was still
ITALIAN TAINTING,
«9
tldiie in Ircsio, cspt'ciall)' al I'lort'iicr ami Roiiic, yet the
bulk of Hiijii- Rcnaissaiuc paintinj;' was in oils upon panel
and canwis. At Waiirc even the deeorative wall paintings
were upon ean\as, afterward inserted in wall or eeiliii^;'.
THE FLOKENTINES AND ROMANS: There was a severity
and austeritN' about the Idorentine art, even at its eliuiax.
It was never too sensuous and luxurious, but rather exact
and intellectual. The Florentines were fond of lustreless
fresco, architectural composition, towering or sweeping
lines, rather sharp color as compared with the Venetians,
and theological, classical, even literary and allegorical sub-
■
r^^K^ # ^^^^^^^H
^H
^E^W''* "'^B
i
'^' mI
H|
^^B fit" ., vV
1
'ffg^^^M'
il
MikrjJ
■ **
Wmm
y
1
^1
^^m
. '■''Fa *■«
W jjVik
HH
m
HG. 39. — \NDREA DEL SAN'IO. MADONNA OF ST. FRANCIS. rFFFZI.
jects. Probably this was largely due to the classic bias of
the painters and the intellectual and social influences of
Florence and Rome. Line and composition were means of
90 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
expressing abstract thought better than color, though some
of the Florentines employed both line and color know-
ingly.
This was the case with Fra Bartolommeo (1475-1517), a
monk of San Marco, who was a transition painter from the
fifteenth to the sixteenth century. He was a religionist, a
follower of Savonarola, and a man of soul who thought to
do work of a religious character and feeling ; but he was
also a fine painter, excelling in composition, drawing, drap-
ery, color. The painter's element in his work, its material
and earthly beauty, rather detracted from its spiritual
significance. He opposed the sensuous and the nude, and
yet about the only nude he ever painted — a St. Sebastian
for San Marco — had so much of the earthly about it that
people forgot the suffering saint in admiring the fine body,
anil the picture had to be removed from the convent. In
sucli ways religion in art was gradually undermined,
not alone by naturalism and classicism but by art itself.
Fainting brought into life by religion no sooner reached
maturity than it led people away from religion by pointing
out sensuous beauties in the type rather than religious
beauties in the symbol.
P'ra Bartolommeo was among the last of the pietists in
art. He had no great imagination, but some feeling and a
fine color-sense for Florence. Naturally he was influenced
somewhat by the great ones about him, learning perspective
from Raphael, grandeur from Michael Angelo, and contours
from Leonardo da Vinci. He worked in collaboration with
Albertinelli (1474-1515), a skilled artist and a fellow-pupil
with Bartolommeo in the workshop of Cosimo Rosselli. Their
work is so much alike that it is often difficult to distinguish
the painters apart. Albertinelli was not so devout as his
companion, but he painted the religious subject with feeling,
as his Visitation in the Uffizi indicates. Among the follow-
ers of Bartolommeo and Albertinelli were Fra Paolino (1490-
[TAI.IAN PAINTINC..
9'
1547), Bugiardini (1475-1554), Granacci (1477-154,;), "I"'
sho\\ci.l iiKun inlliKiKt's.aiul RidolfoGhirlandajo (1 4S ;- 1 561).
Andrea del Sarto (i4X()-i53i) was a I'loreiUinL- pure and
40. —MICHAEL ANGEIO. ATHI.KTF..
U^TINK, ROMR,
simple — a painter for tlie Cliurch, producing many madonnas
and altar-pieces, and yet possessed of little religious feeling
or depth. He was a painter more than a pietist, and was
called by his townsmen " the faultless painter." So he was
as regards the technical features of his art. He was the
best brushman and colorist of the Florentine school. Deal-
ing largely with the material side his craftsmanship was ex-
cellent and his pictures exuberant with life and color, but
his madonnas and saints were decidedly of the earth — hand-
some P"lorentine models garbed as sacred characters — well-
92 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
drawn and easily painted, with little devotional feeling
about them. He was influenced by other painters to some
extent. Masaccio, Ghirlandajo, and Michael Angelo were
his models in drawing ; Leonardo and Bartolommeo in con-
tours ; while in warmth of color, brush-work, atmospheric and
landscape effects he was quite by himself. He had a large
number of pupils and followers, but most of them deserted
him later on to follow Michael Angelo. Pontormo(i493-i558)
and Franciabigio (14S2-1525) were among the best of them.
Michael Angelo^i474-is64) has been called the " Prophet
of the Renaissance," and perhaps deserves the title, since
he was more of the Old Testament than the New — more of
the austere and imperious than the loving or the forgiving.
There was nosentimental feature about his art. His con-
ception was intellectual, highly imaginative, mysterious, at
times disordered and turbulent in its strength. He came
the nearest to the sublime of any painter in history through
the sole attribute of power. He had no tenderness nor any
winning charm. He did not win, but rather commanded.
Everything he saw or felt was studied for the strength that
was in it. Religion, Old-Testament history, the antique,
humanity, all turned in his hands into symbolic forms of
power, put forth apparently in the white heat of passion, and
at times in defiance of every rule and tradition of art. Per-
sonal feeling was very apparent in his work, and in this
he was as far removed as possible from the Greeks, and
nearer to what one would call to-day a romanticist. There
was little of the objective about him. He was not an imi-
tator of facts but a creator of forms and ideas. His art was
a reflection of himself — a self-sufficient man, positive, crea-
tive, standing alone, a law unto himself.
Technically he was more of a sculptor than a painter. He
said so himself when Julius commanded him to paint the
Sistine ceiling, and he told the truth. He was a magnificent
draughtsman, and drew magnificent sculpturesque figures on
ITALIAN I'AINTINC!.
93
the Sistinc vault. TlKit was almiit all his achicvcincnt
with the brush. In coUir, liyht, air, perspective — in all those
features peculiar to the painter — he was hehinil liis contem-
poraries. Composition he knew a ,L;reat deal about, and in
drawing he had the most positive, far-reaching command of
line of any painter of any time. It was in drawing; that he
showed his ]H>wer. Even this is severe and harsh at times,
and then agani hlled with a grace that is majestic and in
scope universal, as wit-
ness the Creation of
Adam in the Sistine.
lie came out of Flor-
ence, a pupil of Cihirlan-
dajo, with a school feel-
ing for line, stimulated
by the frescos of Masac-
cio and Signorelli. At
an earlv age he declared
himself, and hewed a
path of his own through
art, sn^eeping along with
him many of the slighter
painters of his age.
Long-lived he saw his
contemporaries die
about him and Human-
ism end in bloodshed
with the coming of the
Jesuits; but alone,
gloomy, resolute, stead-
fast to his belief, he held his way, the last great representa-
tive of Florentine art, the first great representative of in-
dividuaUsm in art. With him and after him came many fol-
lowers who strove to imitate his "terrible style," but they
did not succeed any too well.
HG. 41. — 1; \I'H \E1-
HELLE JAKD[\IF. KE.
94 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
The most of these followers find classification under the
Mannerists of the Decadence. Of those who were im-
mediate pupils of Michael Angelo, or carried out his de-
signs, Daniele da Volterra (1509-1566) was one of the most
satisfactory. His chief work, the Descent from the Cross,
was considered by Poussin as one of the three great pict-
ures of the world. It is sometimes said to have been de-
signed by Michael Angelo, but that is only a conjecture. It
has much action and life in it, but is somewhat affected in
pose and gesture, and Volterra's work generally was de-
ficient in real energy of conception and execution. Mar-
cello Venusti (1515-1585?) painted directly from Michael
Angelo's designs in a delicate and precise way, probably im-
bibed from his master, Perino del Vaga, and from associa-
tion with Venetians like Sebastiano del Piombo (1485-1547).
This last-named painter was born in Venice and trained
under Bellini and Giorgione, inheriting the color and light-
and-shade qualities of the Venetians ; but later on he went
to Rome and came under the influence of Michael Angelo
and Raphael. He tried, under Michael Angelo's inspira-
tion it is said, to unite the Florentine grandeur of line
with the Venetian coloring, and thus outd(j Raphael. It
was not wholly successful, though resulting in an excellent
(]uality of art. As a portrait-painter he was above re-
proach. His early works were rather free in impasto, the
late ones smooth and shin)', in imitation (jf Raphael.
Raphael Sanzio (1483-1520) was more (}reek in method
tlian any of the great Renaissance painters. In subject he
was not more classic than others of liis time ; he painted
all subjects. In thought he was not particularly classic ; he
was chiefly intellectual, with a leaning toward the sensuous
that was half-pagan. It was in method and expression
more than elsewhere that he showed the Greek spirit. He
aimed at the ideal and the universal, independent, so far as
possible, of the individual, and sought by a union of all
ITALIAN I'AINTINC. 95
flements to pro(.luce [KTl'cct harmony. TIk- Harmonist <if
the Renaissance is iiis title. And tills harmony extended
io a l)lendiiig of tlioiight, form, and e.vpression, heigiitening
or modifying every element until they ran together with
such rhythm that it could not be seen where one left off
and another began. He was the very opposite of Michael
Angelo. 'The art of the latter was an expression (jf in-
dividual power and was purely subjective. Raphael's art
was largely a unity of objective beauties, with the personal
element as much in abeyance as was possible for his time.
His education was a cultivation of every grace of mind
and hand. He assimilated freely whatever he found to be
good in the art about him. A pupil of Perugino origi-
nally, he levied upon features of excellence in Masaccio, Fra
Bartolommeo, Leonardo, Michael Angelo. From the first
he got tenderness, from the second drawing, from the third
color and composition, from the fourth charm, from the
fifth force. Like an eclectic Greek he drew from all
sources, and then blended and united these features in a
peculiar style of his own and stamped them with his pecul-
iar Raphaelesque stamp.
hi subject Raphael was religious and mythological, but
he was imbued with neither of these so far as the initial
spirit was concerned. He looked at all subjects in a calm,
intellectual, artistic way. Even the celebrated Sistine
Madonna is more intellectual than pietistic, a Christian
ALnerva ruling rather than helping to save the world.
The same spirit ruled him in classic and theological
themes. He did not feel them keenly or execute them
passionately — at least there is no indication of it in his
work. The doing so would have destroyed unity, sym-
metry, repose. The theme was ever held in check by a
regard for proportion and rhythm. To keep all artistic
elements in perfect equilibrium, allowing no one to pre-
dominate, seemed the mainspring of his action, and in
96
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
doing this he created that harmony which his admirers
sometimes refer to as pure beauty.
For his period and school he was rather remarkable tech-
nically. He excelled in everything except brush-work,
which was never brought to maturity in either Florence or
Rome. Even in color he was fine for Florence, though n(.)t
equal to the Venetians. In composition, modelling, line,
even in texture painting (see his portraits) he was a man of
accomplishment; while in grace, purity, serenity, loftiness
he was the Florentine leader easily first.
^JV!F,SXi»*'^V,JiyV'ji4-i
FIG. 42. GII'Lin ROMANO. APOl.I.O AND MUSES. PITTI.
The influence of Raphael's example was largely felt
throughout Central Italy, and even at the north, result-
ing in many imitators and followers, who tried to produce
Raphaelesque effects. Their efforts were usually success-
ful in precipitating charm into sweetness and sentiment
into sentimentality. Francesco Penni (i488?-i528) seems
to have been content to work under Raphael with some
ability. Giulio Romano (1492-1546) was the strongest of
the pupils, and became the founder and leader of the Roman
school, which had considerable influence upon the painters
of the Decadence. He adopted the classic subject and
tried to adopt Raphael's style, but he was not completely
ITALIAN I'ArN'I'lNf;. 97
successful. Raphad's rcfiiuiiiciil in Ciiuliu's hamis became
exaggerated cuarseuess. He was a good draughtsman, Init
rather liot as a colorist, and a composer of violent, restless,
and, at times, contortcil groups. He was a prolific painter,
but his work tended toward the barotpie style, aiul had a
bad influence on the succeeding schools.
Primaticcio (1504-1570) was one of his followers, and had
much to do with the founding of the scIkxjI of l-'ontaine-
bleau in France. Giovanni da Udine (1487-1564), a ^'enetian
trained painter, became a follower of Raphael, his only
originality showing in decorative designs. Perino del Vaga
(1500-1547) was of the same cast of mind. Andrea Sabbatini
(i4So?-i545) carried Raphael's types and methods to the
south of Italy, and some artists at Bologna, and in Umljria,
like Innocenza da Imola (1494-1550 ?), and Timoteo di Viti
(1469-1523), adopted the Raphael type and method to the
detriment of what native talent they may have possessed,
though about Timoteo there is some tloubt whether he
adopted Raphael's type, or Raphael his type.
PRINCIPAL WORKS; Florentines — Fra Bartolommeo, Descent
from the Cross Salvalor Muiidi St. Mark Pilli, Madonnas and Propliels
Uftizi, otlier pictures Florence Acad., Louvre, Vienna Gal.; Albertinelli,
Visitation L^ffizi, Clirist Magdalene Madonna Louvre, Trinity I^Lrdonna
Florence Acad., Annunciation Munich Gal.; Fra Paolino, works at San
Spirito Sienna, S. Domenico and S. Paolo Pistoia, >Lrdonna Florence
Acad.; Bugiardini, Madonna Ufl'izi, St. Catlierine S. M. Novella Flor-
ence, Nativity Berlin, St. Catiierine Bologna Gal.; Granacci, allar-]iieccs
Uftizi, Pitti, Acad. Florence, Berlin and Munich Gals.; Ridolfo Ghirlan-
dajo, S. Zenohio pictures Uffizi, also Louvre and Berlin Gal.; Andrea
del Sarto, many jiictures in Uffizi and Pitti, Louvre, Berlin, Dresden,
Madrid, Nat. Gal, Lon., frescos S. Annunziata and the Scalzo F'loience ;
Pontormo, frescos .Xnnunziata Flr>rence, Visitation and Madonna I^ouvre,
portrait Berlin Gal.; Supper at Emmaus Florence Acad., other works Uffizi ;
Franciabigio, fresco.s courts of the Scrvi and Scalzo Florence, Bathsheba
Dresden Gal., many portraits in Louvre, T^iui, Berlin Gal.; Michael
Angelo, frescos Sistine Koine, Holy F~aniily Uffizi ; Daniele da Volterra,
7
98 HISTORY OF TAINTING.
frescos Hist, of Cross Trinita de' Monti Rome, Innocents Ufiizi ; Venusti,
fruscos Castel San Angelo, S. Spirito Rome, Annuncialion St. John Lat-
eraii Rome ; Sebastiano del Piombo, Lazarus Nat. Gal. Lon., I'ieta
\'iterl)0, Fornarina Ulfizi (ascribed to Raphael) Fornarina and Clirist Bear-
ing Cross Berlin and Dresden Gals., Agatha Pitti, \'isitation Louvre, jior-
trait Diiria Gal. Rome; Raphael, Marriage of Virgin Brera, Madonna
and Vision of Knight Nat. Gal. Lon., Madonnas St. Michael and St.
George Lou\'re, many Madonnas and }")ortraits in Uffizi, Pitti, Munich,
Vienna, St. Petershurgh, Madrid Gals., Sistine Madonna Dresden, chief
frescos Vatican Rome.
RoM.\NS : Giulio Romano, frescos Sala di Constantino \'atican Rome
(with Francesco Penni after Ra[iliael), Palazzo del Te Mantua, St. Stephen,
S Slefano Genoa, Holy Family Dresden Gal., other works in Louvre,
Nat. C;al. Lon., Pitti, Ultizi ; Primaticcio, works attributed to him doubt-
ful — Scipio Louvre, Lady at Toilet and Venus Musee de Cluny ; Giovanni
da Udine, decorations, aral.)esques aiul grotesques in Vatican Loggia;
Perino del Vaga, Hist, of Josliua and David Vatican (with Raphael).
Irescos TrinitA de' Monli and Caslcl S. Angelo Rome, Creation of Eve
S. Marcello Rome ; Sabbatini, Adoration Naples Mus., altar-pieces in
Naples and Salerno churches ; Innocenza da Imola, works in Bologna,
Berlin and Munich Gals.; Timoteo di Viti, Church of ihe I'ace Rome
(after Raphael), niad.iinias and Magdalene lirera, .Acad, of St. Luke
Rome, Boli.gna Gal., S. Donienico Urbino, Gubbio Cathedial.
CIIAI'TBK IX.
ITALIAN rAI.\"lTN(;.
Till". !lir,H RFNAl.ss AN'l'l''., 150O-160O. — ( ilN'll X U I'.l).
Fmhiks Rl',^■(lM^[F.^•|)F.l> : 'Vhc works on Italian art hcfoix
nicntiiincil and consult alsu the Ocncral liililiograpliy (p. xv.)
LEONARDO DA VINCI AND THE MILANESE : Tile third per-
son ni tlie great Florentine trinity of painters \\"as Leonardo
da Vinci (1452-1519), the other two being Michael Angelo
and Raphael. He greatly innueneed the school of Milan,
and has usually been classed with the Milanese, vet he
was educated in Florence, in the workshop of Verroechio,
and was so universal in thought and methods that he hardly
belongs to any school.
He has been named a realist, an idealist, a magician, a
wizard, a dreamer, and finally a scientist, by different writers,
yet he was none of these things wdiile feeing all of them — a
full-r(junded, universal man, learned in many departments
and excelling in whatever he unilertook. He had the scien-
tific and experimental way <jf hjoking at things. That is
|)erhaps to be regretted, since it resulted in his experiment-
ing with everything and completing little of anything. His
different tastes and pursuits pulled him different ways, and
his knowledge made him sceptical of his own powers. He
pondered and thought h(jw to reach up higher, how to jiene-
trate deeper, how to realize more comprehensively, and in
the end he .gave up in des|)air. He could not fulfil his ideal
of the head of Christ nor the head of Mona Lisa, and after
lOO
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
years of labor he left them unfinished. The problem of
human life, the spirit, the world engrossed him, and all his
creations seem impregnated with the psychological, the
mystical, the unattainable, the hidden.
He was no religionist, though painting the religious sub-
ject with feeling ; he was not in any sense a classicist,
nor had he any care for the antique marbles, which he con-
sidered a study of nature at second-hand. He was more in
love with physical life withcjut being an enthusiast over it.
His regard for contours, rhythm of line, blend of light with
shade, study of atmosphere, perspective, trees, animals, hu-
manity, show that though he examined nature scientifically,
he pictured it lesthetically. In his types there is much
ITAr.lAN I'AINTINC. 101
swct'tness of soul, rliarni nl disposilion, (lii;iiily dI mien, even
>;"raiulcur and majcst\' ol inisciu r. His people \\i- woulil
like to know better. 'I'Iua' are lull of life, iiitellii;eiiee, syni-
patliv ; tliev lia\'e faseinallon of manner, wnisonieness of
mood, ^I'aee of l>earin^. \\'e see this in Ins hesl-known
work — the Mona Lisa of the Louvre. It has mueh allure-
ment of personal presence, with a depth and abmidanee of
soul altogether charmnij;;.
Technically, Leonardo was not a handler of the brush
superior m any way to his Florentine contemporaries. He
knew all the methods ami mediums of the time, and did
much to establish oil-painting among' the I'doreiitines, but he
was neyer a painter like 'Litian, or even Correggio or .\iidrea
del Sarto. A splendid draughtsman, a man of invention,
imagination, .grace, elegance, and power, he nevertheless
carried more by mental penetration and aasthetic sense than
by his technical skill. He was one of the great men of the
Renaissance, and deservedly holds a place in the front rank.
'J'hough Leonardo's accomplishment seems slight because
of the little that is left to us, yet he had a great following
not only among the Florentines but at Milan, where ^'in-
cenza F'oppa had started a school in the Early Renaissance
time. Leonardo was there for fourteen years, and his artistic
personality influenced many painters to adopt his type and
methods. Bernardino Luini ( 1475 ?-i5,?3 ?) "'is the most
prominent of the disciples. He cultivated Leonardo's sen-
timent, style, subjects, and composition in his middle period,
but later on developed independence and originality. He
came at a period of art when that earnestness of characteri-
zation which marked the early men was giving way to grace-
fulness of recitation, and that was the chief feature of his art.
For that matter gracefulness and pathetic sweetness of
mood, with purity of line and warmth of color characterized
all the Milanese painters.
The more ])r<jminent lights of the school were Salaino
I02
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
(tl. 1495-151S), of whose work nothing authentic exists,
Beltraffio (1467-1516), a painter of limitations but of much
refinement and purity, and Marco da Oggiono (i47o?-iS3o) a
close follower of Leonardo. Solario (1458 ?-i5i5 ?) probably
became acquainted early with the Flemish mode of working
FIG. 44. — LL'I.M. DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS WITH HEAD OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. UFFIZI.
practised by Antonello da Messina, but he afterward came
under Leonardo's spell at Milan. He was a careful, refined
painter, possessed of feeling and tenderness, producing pict-
ures with enamelled surfaces and much detail. Giampietrino
(fl. 1520-1540) and Cesare da Sesto (1485 ?-i523 ?) were also
of the Milanese school, the latter afterward falling under the
Raphael influence. Gaudenzio Ferrara (r48i ?-i547 ?), an
exceptionally brilliant colorist and a painter of much dis-
ITALIAN I'AINTINC. 103
tiiictiiHi, w. IS under 1 .(.■miardo's iiilliK'HCc at oiu' tiuic, anil
with the teachings of that master he nniij;'le(l a little of
Raphael in tlie t\|H' of face. lie was an uneven painter,
olten e\eessi\'e ni sentiment, but at his best one oi the most
charniiuL;- of the nortlu'rn painters.
SODOMA AND THE SIENNESE : Sienna, alive in the four-
teenth eenlur\- to all that was stirring in art, in the fifteenth
century was in complete eclipse, no jiainters of consequence
emanating from there or being established there. In the
sixteenth centur\- there was a revival of art l)ecause of a
northern painter settling there and building up a new school.
Idiis painter was Sodoma (1477 ?-l549). He was one of the
best pupils of I,eonartlo da \'inci, a master (ji the human
figure, handling it with much grace and charm (jf expression,
but not so successful with groups or studied compositions,
wherein he was inclined to huddle and over-crowd space.
He was afterward led off l)y the brilliant success of Raphael,
and ath")pted something of that master's style. His best work
was done in fresco, though he did some easel pictures that
have darkened very much through time. He was a friend
of Raphael, and his portrait appears beside Raphael's in the
latter painter's celebrated School of Athens. The pupils
and followers of the Siennese School were not men of great
strength. Pacchiarotta (1474-1540 ?), Girolamo della Pacchia
(1477-1535), Peruzzi (1481-1536), a half-Lombard half-
Umbrian painter of ahjility, and Beccafumi ( i 4S6-1 55 i) were
the principal lights. The influence of the school was slight.
FEERAEA AND BOLOGNESE SCHOOLS: The painters of these
schools during the sixteenth century have usually l^een
classed among the followers and imitators of Raphael, but
not without some injustice. The influence of Raphael was
great throughout Central Italy, and the Ferrarese and
Bolognese felt it, but not to the extinction of their native
thought and methods. Moreover, there was some influence
in color coming from the Venetian school, but again not to
I04
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
the entire extinction of Ferrarese individuality. Dosso Dossi
(1479 ?-i542), at Ferrara, a pupil of Lorenzo Costa, was the
chief painter of the time, and he showed more of Giorgione
in color and light-and-shade than anyone else, yet he never
abandoned the yellows, greens, and reds peculiar to Ferrara,
and both he and Garofolo were strikingly original in their
background landscapes. Garofolo (1481-1559) was a pupil
of Panetti and Costa, who made several visits to Rome and
there fell in love with Raphael's work, which showed in a
fondness for the sweep and flow of line, in the type of face
EC-^IASV OK ST. C.A1HER[NE.
adopted, and in the calmness of his many easel pictures. He
was not so dramatic a painter as Dosso, and in addition he
had certain mannerisms oi' earmarks such as sootiness in
ITALIAN rAINTINC. IO5
his llesh tints and hri^litnoss in his yrllows and i;ricns, w itli
duhiess in his reds. He was always l-'rrrarrsc in liis land-
scapes and in the main eharaetenstii'S ol his teehnie. Maz-
zolino (1480 ?-i 52S ?) was another of the sehoiil, |)|-()i)ably
a |ni|iil of Tanetti. He was an elaborate painter, tond of
arehiteettiral baekyronndsand ylowin;^- colors enlivenetl with
,L;-old in the high lights. Bagnacavallo ( 14S4-1 542) was a
|")upil of l'"rancia at liologna, but with much of Dossoand
Ferrara about him. He, in common with Imola, already
ineiitioneel, was indebted to the art of Raphael.
COKREGGIO AT PAEMA : In Correggio (i494?-i534) all the
Hoceaceio nature of the Renaissance came to the surlace.
It was indicated in Ainlrea tlel Sarto — this nature-worship- -
btit Correggio was the consummation. He was the Kaun of
the Renaissance, the painter with whom the beauty of the
human as distinguished from the religious and the classic
showed at its very strongest. Free annual spirits, laughing
madonnas, raving nymphs, e.xciteel children of the wood,
and angels of the sky pass and repass through his pictures
in an atmosi)here of pure sensuousness. They appeal to us
ncit religiouslv, not historicallv, not intellectually, but sen-
suouslv and artistically through their rhythmic lines, their
palpitating flesh, their beauty of color, and in the light and
atmosphere that surround them. He was less of a religion-
ist than Andrea del Sarto. Religion in art was losing
ground in his day, and the liberality and worldliness of
its teachers appeared clearly enough in the decorations of
the Convent of St. Paul at Parma, where Correggio was
allowed to paint mythological Dianas and Cupids in the
place of saints and inadonnas. True enough, he painted
the religious subject very often, but with the same spirit
of life and joyousness as profane subjects.
The classic subject seemed more appropriate to his
spirit, and yet he knew and probably cared less about it
than the religious subject. His Dianas and Fedas are only
I06
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
so in name. They have little of the Hellenic spirit about
them, and for the sterner, heroic phases of classicism — the
lofty, the grand — Correggio never essayed them. The things
Fir.. 46 — CORREGGIO. MARRIAGE OF ST. CATHERINE AND CHRIRT. LOUVRE
of this earth and the sweetness thereof seemed ever his
aim. Women and children were beautiful to him in the
same way that flowers and trees and skies and sunsets were
beautiful. 'I'hey were revelations of grace, charsn, tender-
ness, light, shade, color. Simply to e.xist and be .glad in the
sunlight was sweetness to Correggio. He would have no
Sibylesque mystery, no prophetic austerity, no solemnity,
no great intellectuality. He was no leader of a tragic
chorus. The dramatic, the forceful, the powerful, were
foreign to his mood. He was a singer of lyrics and
ITALIAN PAINTIKC. 10/
pastorals, a lover of the iiuilcrial l)rauty ahiiiil liiiii, and it
is because he passed by the pietistie, the classic, the bt-
erarv, ami showed the beauty of ph\-sical life as an art
uiotive that he is called the h'aun of the Renaissance. The
appellation is not inappi'opriate.
How or why he came to take this course would be hard
to determine. It was rellective of the times ; but Corregj^no,
so far as history tells us, had little to do with the move-
ments and people of his age. He was born and lived and
died near Parma, and is sometimes classed among- the
ISologna-Ferrara painters, but the reasons for the classi-
t'lcation are not too strong. His education, masters, and
intluenccs are all shadowy and indefinite. He seems, from
his drawing and composition, to have known something of
Mantegna at Mantua ; from his coloring something of Dosso
and Garofolo, especially in his straw-yellows ; from his early
tvpes and faces something of Costa and Francia, and his
contours and light-and-shade indicate a knowledge of Leon-
ardo's work. But there is no positive certainty that he saw
the work of any of these men.
His drawing was faulty at times, but not obtrusively so ;
his color and brush-work rich, vivacious, spirited ; his light
brilliant, warm, penetrating ; his contours melting, grace-
ful ; his atmosphere omnipresent, enveloping. In composi-
tion he rather pushed aside line in favor of light and color.
It was his technical peculiarity that he centralized his light
and surrounded it by darks as a foil. And in this very feat-
ure he was (jne of the first men in Renaissance Italy to paint
a picture for the purpose of weaving a scheme of lights and
darks through a tapestry of rich colors. That is art for
art's sake, and that, as will be seen further on, was the
picture motive of the great Venetians.
Correggio's immediate pupils and followers, like those of
Raphael and Andrea del Sarto, did him small honor. As
was usually the case in Renaissance art-history they
I08 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
caught at the method and lost the spirit of the master.
His son, Pomponio Allegpri (1521-1593 ?), was a painter of
some mark without being in the front rank. Michelangelo
Anselmi (i 491-15 54 ?), thougli not a pupil, was an indifferent
imitator of Correggio. Parmig'ianino (1504-1540), a man-
nered painter of some brilliancy, and of excellence in
portraits, was perhaps the best of the immediate followers,
ft was not until after Correggio's death, and with the
painters of the Decadence, that his work was seriously taken
up and followed.
PRINCIPAL WORKS : Milanese — Leonardo da Vinci, Last Suppev S.
M. (lelle Gvazie Rlil.ui (in ruins), Mona Lisa, Madonna with St. Anne
(liadly damaged) Louvre, Adoralion (unfinished) Ufiizi, Angel at left in
\'erruecliio's Baptism Florence Acad.; Luini, frescos Monastero Maggiore,
y I fiagments in Brera Milan, Cluncli of the Pilgrims Sariona, S. AL degli
Angeli Lugano, altar-pieces Duonio Como, Ambrosian Lilirary Milan,
Brera, Ufiizi, Louvre, i\Iadrid, St. Petersburg)!, and other galleries ;
Beltraffio, Madonna Li>uvre, Barljara Berlin Gab, INIadonna Nat. Gal.
I.on., fresco C<)nvent of S. Onofrio Rome {ascribed to Da Vinci) ; Marco
da Oggiono, Arclmngels and otlicr works Brera, Holy Family Madonna
Louvre; Solario, Fcce Iloino Repose Poldi-Pezzoli Gal. Milan, Holy
Family Brera, Madonna Portrait Louvre, Portraits Nat. Gal. L(.in.,
Assumption Certosa of Pavia ; Giampietrino, Magdalene Brera, Ma-
donna S. Sepolcro Milan, Magdalene and Catherine Berlin Gab ; Cesare
da Sesto, Madonna Brera, Magi Naples Mus. ; Gaudenzio Ferrara,
frescijs Clitirch of Pilgrims Saronna, other jucturcs in Brera, Turin Gab,
S. Cbrudeuzio Novara, S. Celso Milan.
SiENNESE — Sodoma, frescris Convent of St. Anne near Pienza,
Benedictine Convent of Mont' Oli\'cto Maggiore, Alexander and Roxana
\^il]a Farnesina Rome, S. Bernardino Palazzo Pubblico, S. Doinenico
Sienna, pictures Uffizi, Brera, ^Munich, Vienna Gals, ; Pacchiarotto,
Ascension Visitation Sienna Gal. ; Girolamo del Pacchia, frescos (3) S.
Bernardino, altar-pieces S. Spirito and Sienna Acad., Munich and Nat. Gal.
Lon. ; Peruzzi, fresco Fontegiuste Sienna, S. Onofrio, S. M. della Pace
Rome; Beccafumi, St. Catherine Saints Sienna Acad., frescos S.
Bernardino Hospital and S. Martino Sienna, Palazzo Doria Rome, Pitti,
Berlin, Munich Gals.
Ferrarese and Bolognese — Dosso Dossi, many works Ferrara,
ITALIAN I'AINTINC;. IO9
Moilena (kiIs., nuoino S. I'iclin MndL-iui, llieia, lioi^liese, 1 )nria, iScilin,
UtesJen, Vicnn:i. r.nls. ; Garofolo, m:\ny wmks I iiiai a clmicln-S ami
C.al., llnri^hoso, Cain])i<^ilon!i,>, Lcuimc, ML'tlin, Uics.lcn, Munich, Nat.
tial. I. on. ; Mazzolino, I'cnaia, IJcrlin, Dresden, Louvre, 1 )uria,
li.'ighese, Pitti, UlVizi, anii Nat. (lai. Lon. ; Bagnacavallo, Miseiienidia
and Gal. lx>L>i^iKi, Luuvio, ISeilin, I )iesden Clals.
Larmesk — Correggio, frescos Convent of S, I'aolo, S. (iinvanni
Evangelista, Ituonio Parma, altar-pieces Diesden (4), Parma (lals.,
Louvre, niyilioloi^ical jucUues Antio]ie Lmivre, Danae Borghese, Lcda
Jupiter and L' Perlin, \'cnus Mercury and Ciipitl Nat, Gal. Lun., <;any-
meile \'ienna Gal. ; Pomponio AUegri, frescos Ca])elia del Pupulu
I'.irma ; Anselmi, frcsc'S S. Giovanni I'',vangelista, altar-ineces
Madonna della Steccata, Duonio, Gal. Parma, Louvre ; Parmigianino,
frescos Moses Steccata, S. Giovanni Parma, altar-pieces Santa Mar-
glierita, Bologna Gal., Madonna Pitti, portraits UtVizi, Vienna, Naples
Mus., other works Dresden, Vienna, and Nat. Gal. Lon.
CHAPTER X.
ITALIAN PAINTING.
THE HIGH RENAISSANCE. 1500-1600. {Continued^
Books Recojimended : The works on Italian art before
mentioned and also consult General Bibliography, (page xv.)
THE VENETIAN SCHOOL ; It was at Venice and with the
Venetian painters of the sixteenth century that a new art-
motive was finally and fully adopted. This art-motive was
not religion. For though the religious subject was still
largely used, the religious or pietistic belief was not with
the Venetians any more than with Correggio. It was not
a classic, antique, realistic, or naturalistic motive. The
Venetians were interested in all phases of nature, and
they were students of nature, but not students of truth for
truth's sake.
What they sought, primaril)', was the light and shade on
a nude shoulder, the delicate contours of a form, the flow
and fall of silk or brocade, the richness of a robe, a scheme
of color or of light, the character of a face, the majesty of
a figure. They were seeking effects of line, light, color —
mere sensuous and pictorial effects, in which religion and
classicism played secondary parts. They believed in art
for art's sake ; that painting was a creation, not an illustra-
tion ; that it should exist by its pictorial beauties, not by its
subject or story. No matter what their subjects, they
invariably painted them so as to show the beauties they
prized the highest. The Venetian conception was less
ITALIAN I'AINTING,
I I I
austere, i^raiul, intellei liial, tliaii pictorial, sensiunis, toii-
ceriiin;^- the beautiful as it apjiealetl to the eye. And tins
was not a sliyiit or uiiwortliy eoneeption. True it dealt
Fir,. 47, — GIORGIONE (?). ORDEAL OF MOSES. liFFIZl.
with the fuhiess of material life, but regarded as it was by
the Venetians — a thing full-rounded, complete, harmonious,
splendid — it became a great ideal of e.xistence.
In technical expression color was the note of all the
school, with hardly an exception. This in itself would
seem to imply a lightness of spirit, for color is somehow
associated in the popular mind with decorative gayety; but
nothing could be further removed from the Venetian school
than triviality. Color was taken up with the greatest
seriousness, and handled in such masses and with such
112 HISTORY OF PAINTING,
dignified power that while it pleased it also awed the spec-
tator. Without having quite the severity of line, some of
the Venetian chromatic schemes rise in sublimity almost to
the Sistine modellings of Michael Angelo. We do not feel
this so much in Giovanni Bellini, fine in color as he was.
He came too early for the full splendor, but he left many
pupils who completed what he had inaugurated.
THE GKEAT VENETIANS ; The most positive in influence
upon his contemporaries of all the great Venetians was
Giorgione (1477 ?-i5ii). He died young, and what few
pictures by him are left to us have been so torn to pieces
by historical criticism that at times one begins to doubt if
there ever was such a painter. His different styles have
been confused, and his pictures in consequence thereof
attributed to followers instead of to the master. Painters
change their styles, but seldom their original bent of mind.
With Giorgione there was a lyric feeling as shown in
music. The voluptuous swell of line, the melting tone of
color, the sharp dash of light, the undercurrent of atmos-
phere, all mingled for him into radiant melody. He
sought pure pictorial beauty and found it in everything
of nature. He had little grasp of the purely intellectual,
and the religious was something he dealt with in no strong
devotional way. The fete, the concert, the fable, the
legend, with a landscape setting, made a stronger appeal to
him. More of a recorder than a thinker he was not the less
a leader showing the way into that new Arcadian grove
of pleasure whose inhabitants thought not of creeds and
faiths and histories and literatures, but were content to
lead the life that was sweet in its glow and warmth of color,
its light, its shadows, its bending trees, and arching skies.
A strong full-blooded race, sober-minded, dignified, ration-
ally happy with their lot, Giorgione portrayed them with an
art infinite in variety and consummate in skill. Their least
features under his brush seemed to glow like jewels. The
ITALIAN PAINTING.
I r
sheen of armor and rich rohc, a bare forearm, a nude
back, or loosened hair — mere morsels of color and lij.;iit —
all took on a new beaiit)'. Even iantlseape with him became
more signilieanl. His master, liellini, hail been realistic
eiuiu^h in the details of trees and hills, but (".ior^none
t;rasped the meaning of landscape as an entirety, and ren-
dered it with poetic breadth.
Technically he adopted the oil medium brought to \'enice
FI^.. 48. — TITIAM. VENTS EQUIPPIXG CHPID. BORCHE'^F P\r.., RO^TE.
by Antonello da jNfessina, introducing scumbling and glaz-
ing t(j obtain brilliancy and depth of color. Of light-and-
shade he was a master, and in atmosphere excellent. He,
in common with all the Venetians, is sometimes said to be
lacking in drawing, but that is the result of a misunder-
standing. The Venetians never cared to accent line, choos-
ing rather to model in masses of light and shadow and
color. Giorgione was a superior man with the brush, but
not quite up to his contemporary Titian.
That is not surprising, for Titian (1477-1576) was the
8
114 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
painter easily first in the wliole range of Italian art. He
was the first man in the history of painting to handle a brush
with freedom, vigor, and gusto. And Titian's brush-work
was probably the least part of his genius. Calm in mood,
dignified, and often majestic in conception, learned beyond
all others in his craft, he mingled thought, feeling, color,
brush-work into one grand and glowing whole. He em-
phasized nothing, yet elevated everything. In pure intel-
lectual thought he was not so strong as Raphael. He never
sought to make painting a vehicle for theological, literary,
or classical ideas. His tale was largely of humanity under
a religious or classical name, but a noble, majestic humanity.
In his art dignified senators, stern doges, and solemn eccle-
siastics mingle with open-eyed madonnas, winning Ariadnes,
and youthful Bacchuses. Men and women they are truly,
but the very noblest of the Italian race, the mountain race
of the Cadore country — proud, active, glowing with life ; the
sea race of Venice — worldly wise, full of character, luxurious
in power.
In himself he was an epitome of all the excellences of
painting. He was everything, the sum of Venetian skill,
the crowning genius of Renaissance art. He had force,
power, invention, imagination, point of view ; he had the
infinite knowledge of nature and the infinite mastery of art.
In addition, Fortune smiled upon him as upon a favorite
child. Trained in mind and hand he lived for ninety-nine
years and worked unceasingly up to a few months of his
death. His genius was great and his accomplishment
equally so. He was celebrated and independent at thirty-
five, though before that he showed something of the influ-
ence of Giorgione. After the death of Giorgione and his
master, Bellini, Titian was the leader in Venice to the end
of his long life, and though having few scholars of impor-
tance his influence was spread through all North Italian
painting.
ITALIAN PAINTING.
115
Takin;^ him for all in all, perhaps it is not t(jo nuK'.ii to say
that he was the greatest painter known to history. If it
were |H)ssil)le to deseribe that greatness in one word, that
word woLikl be " universality." lie saw and painted that
whieh w.is imiversal in its trtith. The loeal and particular,
the small and the accidental, were passed over for those
threat truths which belonj;' to all the world of life. In this
respect he was a veritable Shakespeare, with all the calmness
FIG. 49. — TINTORETTO. MERCURY AND GRACES. DUCAL PAL., VENICE.
and repose of one who overlooked the world from a lofty
height.
The restfulness and easy strength of Titian were not
characteristics of his follower Tintoretto (1518-1592). He
Il6 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
was violent, headlong, impulsive, more impetuous than
Michael Angelo, and in some respects a strong reminder of
him. He had not Michael Angelo's austerity, and there
was more clash and tumult and fire about him, but he had
a command of line like the Florentine, and a way of hurling
things, as seen in the Fall of the Damned, that reminds
one of the Last Judgment of the Sistine. It was his aim to
combine the line of Michael Angelo and the color of Titian ;
but without reaching up to either of his models he pro-
duced a powerful amalgam of his own.
He was one of the very great artists of the world, and
the most rapid workman in the whole Renaissance period.
There are to-day, after centuries of decay, fire, theft, and
repainting, yards upon yards of Tintoretto's canvases rot-
ting upon the walls of the Venetian churches. He pro-
duced an enormous amount of work, and, what is to be
regretted, much of it was contract work or experimental
sketching. This has given his art a rather bad name, but
judged by his best works in the Ducal Palace and the
Academy at Venice, he will not be found lacking. Even
in his masterpiece (The Miracle of the Slave) he is " II
Furioso," as they used to call him ; but his thunderbolt
style is held in check by wonderful grace, strength of
modelling, superb contrasts of light with shade, and a
coloring of flesh and robes not unworthy of the very
greatest. He was a man who worked in the white heat of
passion, with much imagination and invention. As a tech-
nician he sought difficulties rather than avoided them.
There is some antagonism between form and color, but
'I'intoretto tried to reconcile them. The result was some-
times clashing, but no one could have done better with
them than he did. He was a fine draughtsman, a good
colorist, and a master of light. As a brushman he was a
superior man, but not equal to Titian.
Paolo Veronese (1528-1588), the fourth great Venetian,
ITALIAN rAINTING.
117
did nol fiillow llic line dircclion set by 'I'iiitorcttHj but ear-
ned out the original color-leaniny of tlie school. He came
a little later than Tintoretto, and his art was a reflection of
the advancing Ixe-
naissance, wherein
>iniplicitv was des-
tined t(.) lose itself
i n c o ni p 1 e X i t )' ,
grandeur, and dis-
play. Paolo came
on the very crest
of the Renaissance
wave, when art,
risen to its great-
est height, was
gleaming in that
transparent splen-
dor that precedes
the fall.
The great bulk
of his work had a
large decorative
motive behind it.
Almost all of the
late Venetian work
was of that character. Hence it was brilliant in color, elab-
orate in subject, and grand in scale. Splendid robes, hang-
ings, furniture, architecture, jewels, armor, appeared every-
where, and not in flat, lustreless hues, but with that brill-
iancy which they possess in nature. Drapery gave way to
clothing, and texture-painting was introduced even in the
largest canvases. Scenes from Scripture and legend turned
into grand pageants of Venetian glory, and the facial ex-
pression of the characters rather passed out in favor of
telling masses of color to be seen at a distance upon wall
\ERONESE. VENICE ENTHRONED. DIC.\L
KAL., VENICE.
Il8 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
or ceiling. It was pomp and glory carried to the highest
pitch, but with all seriousness of mood and truthfulness in
art. It was beyond Titian in variety, richness, ornament,
facility ; but it was perhaps below Titian in sentiment,
sobriety, and depth of insight. Titian, with all his sen-
suous beauty, did appeal to the higher intelligence, while
Paolo and his companions appealed more positively to the
eye by luxurious color-setting and magnificence of inven-
tion. The decadence came after Paolo, but not with him.
His art was the most gorgeous of the Venetian school, and
by many is ranked the highest of all, but perhaps it is
better to say it was the height. Those who came after
brought about the decline by striving to imitate his splen-
dor, and thereby falling into extravagance.
These are the four great Venetians — the men of first rank.
Beside them and around them were many other painters,
placed in the second rank, who in any other time or city
would have held first place. Palma il Vecchio (1480 ?-i528)
was so excellent in many ways that it seems unjust to speak
of him as a secondary painter. He was not, however, a great
original mind, though in many respects a perfect painter.
He was influenced by Bellini at first, and then by Giorgione.
In subject there was nothing dramatic about him, and he
carries chiefly by his portrayal of quiet, dignified, and beau-
tiful Venetians under the names of saints and holy families.
The St. Barbara is an example of this, and one of the most
majestic figures in all painting.
Palma's friend and fellow-worker, Lorenzo Lotto (1480?-
1556?) came from the school of the Bellini, and at different
times was under the influence of several Venetian painters —
Palma, Giorgione, Titian — without obliterating a sensitive
individuality of his own. He was a somewhat mannered
but very charming painter, and in portraits can hardly be
classed below Titian. Rocco Marconi (fl. 1505-1520) was
another Bellini-educated painter, showing the influence of
ITALIAN 1'AINT1N(;.
19
Paliiia ami cvi_-n of Paris llordoiic. In colur and laiul-
scapc hr was cxialKiit. Pordenone (14^^-1540) rallicr I'ol-
liiwcd alter ( '.iui-^iiiiu-, and inisucccssfully cuinpctcd willi
I'lliaii. lie w.is Imlincil In I'xaj^^xTalioii in dramatic ccini-
pusition, bnl \\'as a painter of imdcnialilc power. Bonifazio
Veronese ('-1540), Bonifazio II. (?-i55,?). ^'I'd Bonifazio III.
(.'-!5 7o), came Irum a \'eronesc family and were ilostlv re-
FIG. 51. — 1,0T rO. THREE AGEb. I'llTl.
lated. Their styles are difficult to distinguish apart. 'I'he
elder showed the influence of Palma, and all of them were
rather deficient in drawing, though exceedingly brilliant
and rich in coloring. This latter may be said for Paris
Bordone (1405-1570), a painter of Titian's school, gorgeous
in color, but often lacking in truth of form. His portraits
are very fine. yXnother painter family, the Bassani — there
were six of them, of whoin Jacopo Bassano (15 10-1592)
120 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
and his son Francesco Bassano (1550-1591), were the most
noted — formed themselves after Venetian masters, and were
rather remarkable for violent contrasts of light and dark,
genre treatment of sacred subjects, and still-life and animal
painting.
PAINTING IN VENETIAN TERKITOEIES : Venetian painting was
not confined to Venice, but extended through all the Vene-
tian territories in Renaissance times, and those who lived
away from the city were, in their art, decidedly Venetian,
though possessing local characteristics.
At Brescia Savoldo (1480 ?-i548), a rather superficial
painter, fond of weird lights and sheeny draperies, and Ro-
manino (1485 ?-i566), a follower of Giorgione, good in com-
position but unequal and careless in execution, were the
earliest of the High Renaissance men. Moretto (1498 ?-
1555) was the strongest and most original, a man of individ-
uality and power, remarkable technically for his delicacy
and unity of color under a veil of "silvery tone." In com-
position he was dignified and noble, and in brush-work sim-
ple and direct. One of the great painters of the time,
he seemed to stand more apart from Venetian influence
than any other on Venetian territory. He left one remark-
able pupil, Moroni (fl. 1549-1578) whose portraits are to-day
the gems of several galleries, and greatly admired for their
modern spirit and treatment.
, At Verona Caroto and Girolamo dai Libri (1474-1555),
though living into the sixteenth century were more allied
to the art of the fifteenth century. Torbido (i486?-i546 ?)
was a vacillating painter, influenced by Liberale da Verona,
Giorgione, Bonifazio Veronese, and later, even by Giulio
Romano. Cavazzola (1486-1522) was more original, and a
man of talent. There were numbers of other painters
scattered all through the Venetian provinces at this time,
but they were not of the first, or even the second rank, and
hence call for no mention here.
ITALIAN rAINTING. 121
PRINCIPAL WORKS: Giorgione, Fete ]-;iislii|uc Louvre, Sleeping
\'enus Dresden, altar-piece Caslelfranco, Ordeal of Moses jridj^nienl
of Solomon Knight of Malta Ultizi ; Titian, Saered and I'rofane Love
Bt->rghese, Triluile Jloncy Dresden, Annunciation S. Kocco, Pesaro Ma-
donna !■ rari Wniee, Entombment Man witli Glove Louvre, Bacclius
Nat. Gal. Loll., Charles \". Madrid, Dan.e Naples, many other works
in almost e\ery lunopean gallery ; Tintoretto, many works in Venetian
churches, Salute SS. Lliovanni e Paolo S. Maria dell' Orto Scuola and
C'hurch of S. l\occo Ducal Palace \'enice Acad. (I)est work Miracle
of Slave) ; Paola Veronese, many Pictures in S. Sebastiano Ducal Pal-
ace Acai-lemy \ euice, Pitti, Ultizi, Brera, Capitoline and Borghese Gal-
leries Kmne, Turin, Dresden, Vienna, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Palma
il Vecchio, Jacob and Rachel Three Sisters Dresden, Barbara S. M.
Formosa \cnice, other altar-pieces Venice Acad., Colonna Palace
K^inie, Biera, Naples Mus. , \aenna, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Lotto, Three Ages
Pitti. Portraits Brera, Nat. Gal. Lon., altar-pieces SS. Giovanni e Pa-
olo \'etiice and churches at Bergamo, Treviso, Recanti, also UfBzi,
\'ienua, Madrid Gals.; Marconi, Descent Venice Acad., altar-pieces
S. Giorgio Maggiore SS. Giovanni e Paolo Venice ; Pordenone, S.
Lorenzo Madonna \'enice Acad., Salome Doria St. George Quirinale
Rome, other works Madrid, Dresden, St. Petersburg, Nat, Gal. Lon.;
Bonifazio Veronese, St. John St. Joseph etc. Ambrosian Library
Milan (attributed to Giorgione), Holy Family Colonna Pal. Rome, Ducal
Pal., Pitti, Dresden Gals.; Bonifazio IL, Supper at Emmaus Biera, other
works Venice Acad., Pitti, Borghese, Dresden; Bonifazio III., altar-
pieces Venice Acad. (Follow Morelli for attributions in case of the Boni-
fazios) ; Paris Bordone, F'isherman and Doge, Venice Acad., Madonna
Casa Tadini Lovere, portraits in LTttlzi, Pitti, Louvre, Munich, Vienna,
Nat. Gal. Lon., Brignola Pal. Genoa ; Jacopo Bassano, altar-pieces in
Bassano churches, also Ducal Pal. Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon., Uftizi, Naples
Mus.; Francesco Bassano, large pictures Ducal Pal., St. Catherine
Pitti, Sabines Turin, Adoration and Christ in Temple Dresden, Adora-
tion and Last Supper Madrid ; Savoldo, altar-pieces Brera, S. Nic-
colo Treviso, Uflizi, Turin Gal., S. Giobbe Venice, Nat. Gal. Lon.;
Romanino, altar-pieces S. Francesco Brescia, Berlin Gal., S. Giovanni
Evangelista Brescia, Duomo Cremona, Padua, and Nat. Gal. Lon.; Mo-
retto, altar-pieces Brera, Staedel Mus., S. M. della Pieta Venice,
Vienna, Berlin, Louvre, Pitti, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Moroni, portraits Bergamo
Gal., Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon., Berlin, Dresden, Madrid ; Girolamo dai
Libri, Madonna Berlin, Conception S. Paolo Verona, Virgin \'ercuia
Gal., S. Giorgio Maggiore Verona, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Torbido, frescos
Duomo, altar-pieces S. Zeno and S. Eufemia Verona; Cavazzola,
altar-pieces, Verona Gal. and Nat. Gal. Lon.
CHAPTER XI.
ITALIAN PAINTING.
THE DECADENCE AND MODERN WORK. 160O-1894.
Books Recommended: As before, also General Bibliog-
raphy, (page XV.) ; Calvi, Notizie dcUa vita e delle opere di Gio.
Fraiici'sio Barhifra ; Malvasia, Felsina Fittrice ; Sir Joshua
Reynolds, Discourses ; Symonds, Renaissance in Italy — Tlie
Cdtliolic Reaction J W'illard, Modern Italian Art.
THE DECLINE: An art movement in history seems like a
wave that rises to a height, then breaks, falls, and parts of
it are caught up from beneath to help form the strength of
a new advance. In Italy Christianity was the propelling
force of the wave. In the Early Renaissance, the antique,
and the study of nature came in as additions. At Venice
in the High Renaissance the art - for - art's - sake motive
made the crest of light and color. The highest point was
reached then, and there was nothing that could follow but
the breaking and the scattering of the wave. This took
place in Central Italy after 1540, in Venice after 1590.
Art had typified in form, thought, and expression every-
tliing of which the Italian race was capable. It had per-
fected all the graces and elegancies of line and color, and
adorned them with a superlative splendor. There was noth-
ing more to do. The idea was completed, the motive power
had served its purpose, and that store of race-impulse which
seems necessary to the making of every great art was ex-
hausted. For the men that came after Michael Angelo and
ITALIAN rAINTINO.
Tintoretto there was iiothiny;. All that they eoulil do was
to repeat what others had said, or to reeoinbiiie the old
t h o u i;' h t s and forms.
This led iiievitablv to
i 111 i t a t i on, over-refnie-
nieiit of style, and eoii-
sei(.)us study of beaiit\',
resulting in mannerism
and affectation. Such
qualities marketl the art
of those painters who
came in the latter part
of the sixteenth century
and the first of the sev-
enteenth. They were
unfortunate men in the
time of their birth. No
painter could have been
great in the seventeenth
century of Italy. Art
lav prone upon its face
under Jesuit rule, and
the late men were left
upon the barren sands by the receding wave of the Re-
naissance.
AST MOTIVES AND SUBJECTS : As before, the chief subject
of the art of the Decadence was religion, with many heads
and busts of the Madonna, though nature and the classic
still played their parts. After the Reformation at the
North the Church in Italy started the Counter-Reforma-
tion. One of the chief means employed by this Catholic
reaction was the embellishment of church worship, and
painting on a large scale, on panel rather than in fresco, was
demanded for decorative purposes. But the religious mo-
tive had passed out, though its subject was retained, and
CHKI'^T IN' LlMP.n. l-FFIZI.
124 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
the pictorial motive had reached its climax at Venice. The
faith of the one and the taste and skill of the other were not
attainable by the late men, and, while consciously striving
to achieve them, they fell into exaggerated sentiment and
technical weakness. It seems perfectly apparent in their
works that they had nothing of their own to say, and that
they were trying to say over again what Michael Angelo,
Correggio, and Titian had said before them much better.
There were earnest men and good painters among them,
but they could produce only the empty form of art. The
spirit had fled.
THE MANNERISTS : Immediately after the High Renais-
sance leaders of Florence and Rome came the imitators and
exaggerators of their styles. They produced large, crowded
compositions, with a hasty facility of the brush and striking
effects of light. Seeking the grand they overshot the tem-
perate. Their elegance was affected, their sentiment forced,
their brilliancy superficial glitter. When they thought to be
ideal they lost themselves in incomprehensible allegories ;
when they thought to be real they grew prosaic in detail.
These men are known in art history as the Mannerists, and
the men whose works they imitated were chiefly Raphael,
Michael Angelo, and Correggio. There were many of them,
and some of them have already been spoken of as the fol-
lowers of Michael Angelo.
Agnolo Bronzino (1502 ?-i572) was a pupil of Pontormo,
and an imitator of Michael x\ngelo, painting in rather heavy
colors with a thin brush. His characters were large, but
never quite free from weakness, except in portraiture, where
he appeared at his best. Vasari (1511-1574) — the same
Vasari who wrote the lives of the painters — had versatility
and facility, but his superficial imitations of Michael
Angelo were too grandiose in conception and too palpably
false in modelling. Salviati (1510-1563) was a friend of
Vasari, a painter of about the same cast of mind and
ITALIAN PAINTING.
125
hand as ^'asa^i, and Federigo Zucchero (1543-1609) helun^^s
with him in producing; tilings nuiscuhirly biy but intellectu-
ally small. Baroccio (1528- 1 6 1 2), though classed arnonu;-
the ^[allnerists as an imitator of C"on'e,t;)i;io and Raphael, was
really one of the strong' men o( the late times. There was
allectation antl sentimentality alxjut his work, a prettiness
ot face, rosy llesh tints, and a general lightness of color,
but he was a superior brushmaii, a good culorist, and, at
tniics, a man of earnestness and power.
THE ECLECTICS: After tile Mannerists came the Eclectics
of Bologna, led by
the Caracci, who,
about 15S5, sought to
" revive " art. They
started out to correct
the faults of the Man-
nerists, and yet their
own art was based
more on the art of
their great predeces-
sors than on nature.
'I'hey thought to
make a union of Re-
naissance excellences
by combining JNIi-
chael Angelo's line,
'I'itian's color, Cor-
reggio's light - and -
shade and Raphael's
symmetry and grace.
The attempt was
praiseworthy for the
time, but hardly successful. They caught the lines and
lights and colors of the great men, but they overlooked
the fact that the excellence of the imitated lay largely in
-BAROCCIO. ANNUN'Cl-^TION'.
126 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
their inimitable individualities, which could not be com-
bined. The Eclectic worlc was done with intelligence, but
their system was against them and their baroque age was
against them. Midway in their career the Caracci them-
selves modified their eclecticism and placed more reliance
upon nature. But their pupils paid little heed to the modi-
fication.
There were five of the Caracci, but three of them — ■
Ludovico (1555-1619), Agostino (1557-1602), and Annibale
(1560- 1 609) — led the school, and of these Annibale was the
most distinguished. They had many pupils, and their
influence was widely spread over Italy. In Sir Joshua
Reynolds's day they were ranked with Raphael, but at the
present time criticism places them where they belong —
painters of the Decadence with little originality or spon-
taneity in their art, though much technical skill. Domeni-
chino (1581-1641) was the strongest of the pupils. His
St. Jerome was rated by Poussin as one of the three great
paintings of the world, but it never deserved such rank.
It is powerfully composed, but poor in coloring and hand-
ling. The painter had great repute in his time, and was one
of the best of the seventeenth century men. Guido Reni
(1575-1642) was a painter of many gifts and accomplish-
ments, combined with many weaknesses. His works are
well composed and painted, but excessive in sentiment and
overdone in pathos. Albani (i 578-1 660) ran to elegance
and a porcelain-like prettiness. Guercino (1 59 i -i 666) was
originally of the Eclectic School at Bologna, but later took
up with the methods of the Naturalists at Naples. He was
a painter of far more than the average ability. Sassoferrato
(i 605-1 685) and Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) were so super-
saturated with sentimentality that often their skill as
painters is overlooked or forgotten. In spirit they were
about the weakest of the century. There were other eclec-
tic schools started throughout Italy — at Milan, Cremona,
ITALIAN PAINTING.
127
I'cnara — but thev prinhKi'il little worth recording;. At
Rome certain painters like Cristofano Allori (1577-1621), an
exceptionally strong man for tlu' time, Berrettini (1596-
1669), and Maratta (1 1)25-1 7 1 ,;), manufactured a facile kind
;)f paintin;^- from what was attractive in the various schools,
l)ut it was never other than mereti'icious work.
^NN1B\I-E CARACCl,
aMlJMENT OF CHynST.
THE NATURALISTS: Contemporary with the Eclectics
sprang up the Neapolitan school of the Naturalists, led liy
Caravag'gio (1569-1609) and his pupils. These schools
opposed each other, and yet influenced each other. Espe-
cially was this true with the later men, who took what was
best in both schools. The Naturalists were, perhaps, more
firmly based upon nature than the iJolognese Eclectics.
128 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Their aim was to take nature as they found it, and yet,
in conformity with the extravagance of the age, they
depicted extravagant nature. Caravaggio thought to
represent sacred scenes more truthfully by taking his
models from the harsh street life about him and giving
types of saints and apostles from Neapolitan brawlers and
bandits. It was a brutal, coarse representation, rather
fierce in mood and impetuous in action, yet not without
a good deal of tragic power. His subjects were rather
dismal or morose, but there was knowledge in the drawing
of them, some good color and brush-work and a peculiar
darkness of shadow masses (originally gained from
Giorgione), that stood as an ear-mark of his whole school.
From the continuous use of black shadows the school got
the name of the " Darklings," by which they are still known.
Giordano (i 632-1 705), a painter of prodigious facility and
invention, Salvator Rosa (i 615-1673), best known as one of
the early painters of landscape, and Ribera, a Spanish
painter, were the principal pupils.
THE LATE VENETIANS: The Decadence at Venice, like
the Renaissance, came later than at Florence, but after
the death of Tintoretto mannerisms and the imitation
of the great men did away with originality. There
was still much color left, and fine ceiling decorations
were done, but the nobility and calm splendor of Titian's
days had passed. Palma il Giovine (1544-1628) with a
hasty brush produced imitations of Tintoretto with some
grace and force, and in remarkable quantity. He and
Tintoretto were the most rapid and productive painters of
the century ; but Palma's was not good in spirit, though
quite dashing in technic. Padovanino (1590-1650) was
more of a Titian follower, but, like all the other painters of
the time, he was proficient with the brush and lacking in
the stronger mental elements. The last great Italian
painter was Tiepolo (1696-1770), and he was really great
ITALIAN TAINTING.
129
beyond liis age. With an art fduiuled on Paolo Veronese,
he prodiieed decorative ceihnj^s and panels of liigh ([uahty,
w ith wonderful invention, a limpid brush, and a liglit flaky
FIG, 55. C-\RA\'Ar.GtO. THK CARD PI.AVKR';. DREfinEN.
color peculiarly appropriate to the walls of churches and
palaces. He was, especially in easel pictures, a brilliant,
vivacious brushman, full of dash and spirit, tempered by
a large knowledge of what was true and pictorial. Some of
his best pictures are still in Venice, and modern painters are
unstinted in their praise of them. He left a son, Domenico
Tiepolo ( I 726-1 795), who followed his methods. In the late
days of Venetian painting, Canaletto (1697-1768) and Guardi
(1712-1793) achieved reputation by painting Venetian
canals and architecture with much color effect.
NINETEENTH-CENrUEY PAIliTING IN ITALY: There is little
in the art of Italy during the present century that shows
a positive national spirit. It has been leaning on the rest
of Europe for many years, and the best that the living
130 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
painters show is largely an echo of Dusseldorf, Munich, or
Paris. The revived classicism of David in France affected
nineteenth-century painting in Italy somewhat. Then it
was swayed by Cornelius and Overbeck from Germany.
Morelli (1826-*) shows this latter influence, though one of the
most important of the living men.f In the i86o's Mariano
Fortuny, a Spaniard at Rome, led the younger element in
the glittering and the sparkling, and this style mingled with
much that is more strikingl}' Parisian than Italian, may be
found in the works of painters like Michetti, De Nittis
( 1 846-1 884), Favretto, Tito, Nono, Simonetti, and others.
Of recent days the impressionistic view of light and color
has had its influence ; but the Italian work at its best is below
that of France. Segantini I was one of the most promising of
the younger men in subjects that have an archaic air about
them. Boldini, though Italian born and originally following
Fortuny's example, is really more Parisian than anything
else. He is an artist of much power and technical strength
in ge/ire- subjects and portraits.
PRINCIPAL WORKS: Mannerists — Agnolo Bronzino, Christ in /
Limbo and many piirtrails in Uffizi and Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Vasari, many
pictures in galleries at Arezzo, Bologna, Berlin, Munich, Louvre, Madrid ;
Salviati. Charity Christ Uffizi, Patience Pitti, St. Thomas Louvre,
Love and Psyche Berlin ; Federigo Zucchero, Duomo Florence, Ducal
P.alace Venice, Allegories Uffizi, Calumny Hampton Court; Baroccio,
Pardon of St. Francis Urbino, Annunciation Loreto, several pictures in
Uffizi, Xat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Dresden Gal.
Eclectics — Ludovico Caracci, Cathedral frescos Bologna, thirteen
pictures Bologna Gal. ; Agostino Caracci, frescos (with Annibale) Far-
nese Pal. Rome, .altar-pieces Bologna Gal. ; Annibale Carracci, frescos
(with Agostino) Farnese Pal. Rome, other pictures Bologna Gal., Uffizi,
Naples Mus., Dresden, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Domenichino,
St. Jerome Vatican, S. Pietro in Vincoli, Diana Borghese, Bologna, Pitti,
Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; Guido Reni, frescos Aurora Rospigliosi Pal.
Rome, many pictures Bologna, Borghese Gal., Pitti, Uffizi, Brera, Naples,
* Died, 1901. t See Scribner^s ISIagazine, Xeapolitan .\rt, Dec, 1890, Feb., 1891.
} Died, 1899.
TTAMAN PAINTING. 13 I
Louvri', ami oiIut L;,illciics uf ICiiiDpe ; Albani, Gucrcino, Sassoferrato,
and Carlo Dolci, wniks in alnicst cvury lMiiit|ican L;alli.Ty, cs[iccinl!y
ItoU'i^na ; Cristofano Allori, Judilli I'llli, also |iiciuiijs in Ulli/.i ; Ber-
rettini and Maratta, many examples in [lalian t^allciics, alsu Lnnvic.
N.VTLJRAI.ISI'S — Caravaggio, l^nltmiUnu'iU Vatican, many olliur wnks
in riili, ITii/i, Na|ilcs, Lnuvrc, I ticsdcii, Si. I'clcriliuig ; Giordano,
JndL^nicnl n( I'aiis UL-rlin, many |iicliircs in 1 )il-siIcu and Italian gallciics ;
Salvator Rosa, Ir-sI niaiinc in I'llli, oilier works UHizi, Brura, Naples,
Madrid L:;allorics and C<ilunna, Corsiiu, Doria, Cliij^i Palaces Komu.
Lai'E \'b:NEriANS — Palma il Giovine, Ducal Palace Venice, Cassil,
Ihcsden, ^[unicl^ Madrid. Naples, Vienna galleries ; Padovanino, Mar-
riage in Cana Kneeling Angel and oilier wt.nks Venice Acad., Carniina
\"enice. al^o galleries oi Louvre, Ullizi, Borgliese, Dresden, London ;
Tiepolo, large fresco Villa Pisani Stra, Palazzo Labia Scnola Carmina,
Venice, \'illa Valmarana, and at Wiirlzlmrg, easel pictures Venice Acad.,
Louvre. P>erlin, ^ladrid ; Canaletto and Guardi, many [>ictures in Euro-
pean galleries.
Modern Italians* — Morelli, Madonna Royal chap. Castiglione,
Assumption Royal chap. Naples ; Michetti, The Vow Nat. f'.al. Rome ;
De Nittis, Place du Carrousel Luxembourg Paris ; Boldini, Gossi|)S
Mel. Mus. New V()rk.
* Only works in public places are given. Those in private hands
cliange too often for record here. For detailed list of works see Champlin
and Perkins, Cyilo/>LJia of Painters and PaiiUin^^s.
CHAPTER XIT.
FRENCH PAINTING.
SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY
PAINTING.
Books Recommended: Ainorini, Vita del /elchrc pittore
Francesco Primaiiccio; Berger, Hisioire dc l' Ecolc Fiancaisc
de Peiiiture au XVII"" Siecle; PJland, Lcs Peintrcs dcs fetes
galantes, JVatteaii, Boucher, et al.; Curm.tr, L' (Etivre de J^ean
Fouquet; Delaborde, Etudes stir les Beaitx Arts en France et
en Italic; Didot, Etudes siir J^can Cousin; Dumont, Antoine
Watteau; Dussieux, Nouvelles Reeherchcs sur la Vie dc F!.
Lesueur; Genevay, Le Style Louis XIV., Charles Le Brun;
(loncourt, L Art du XVIII"" Siecle; Guibel, Flo^^e de Nicolas
Poussin; Guiffrey, La Faniille de yean Cousin; Laborde, La
Renaissance des Arts a la Cour de France; Lagrange, J. Vcrnet
ct la Pcinturc au XVILI"" Siecle; I>ecoy de la Marche, Le
Roi Rene; Mantz, Francois Boucher; Michiels, Etudes sur
r Art Flamand dans I'esf et le niidi de la France; Muntz, La
Renaissance en Ltalie ct en France; Palustre, La Renaissance en
France; Pattison, Renaissance of Art in France; Pattison,
Claude Lorrain; Poillon, Nicolas Poussin; Stranahan, Llis-
tory of French Painting.
EARLY FKENCH ART : Painting in France did not, as in
Italy, spring directly from Christianity, though it dealt with
the religious subject. From the beginning a decorative
motive — the strong feature of French art — appears as the
chief motive of painting. This showed itself largely in
church ornament, garments, tapestries, miniatures, and illu-
minations. Mural paintings were produced during the fifth
centurj', probably in imitation of Italian or Roman example.
FRENCH PAINTING.
133
ITiulcr Chnrlcmagne, in the ciylUli century, Ryzantiiic in-
tlucncL's were at work. In the eleventh, twelfth, and thir-
teenth eentmies nuieh stainetl-giass woriv appeared, and als(j
many missal painlini;s and fmaiitiire decuratiiins.
In the lifteenlh century Rene of Anjou ( 1 408-1 4S0), kinj;
and painter, i;ave an impetus to art which he perhaps orij,n-
nally received from Italy. }Iis work siiowed some Italian inllu-
IIG. jl). — I'UL^SIN. ET IN AKLAUIA tii^U
ence mingled with a great deal of Flemish precision, and cor-
responded for France to the early Renaissance work of I tidy,
though by no means so advanced. Contemporary with Rene
was Jean Fouquet (1415 ?-i48o ?) an illuminator and por-
trait-painter, one of the earliest in French history. He was
an artist of some original characteristics and produced an
art detailed and exact in its realism. Jean P6real(?- 1 52S?)
and Jean Bourdichon (1457 ?-i52i ?) with Fouquet's pupils
and sons, formed a school at Tours which afterward came to
134 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
show some Italian' influence. The native workmen at
Paris — they sprang up from illuminators to painters in
all probability — showed more of the Flemish influence.
Neither of the schools of the fifteenth century reflected
nmch life or thought, but what there was of it was native to
the soil, though their methods were influenced from without.
SIXTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING: During this century
Francis I., at Fontainebleau, seems to have encouraged two
schools of painting, one the native French and the other an
imported Italian, which afterward took to itself the name of
the "School of Fontainebleau." Of the native artists the
Clouets were the most conspicuous. They were of Flemish
origin, and followed Flemish methods both in technic and
mediums. There were four of them, of whom Jean (1485?-
1541?) and Francois (i5oo?-i572?) were the most noteworthy.
They painted many portraits, and Francois' work, bearing
some resemblance to that of Holbein, it has been doubtfully
said that he was a pupil of that painter. All of their work
was remarkable for detail and closely followed facts.
The Italian importation came about largely through the
travels of Francis I. in Italy. He invited to Fontainebleau
Leonardo da Vinci, Andrea del Sarto, II Rosso, Frimaticcio,
and Niccolo dell' Abbate. These painters rather superseded
and greatly influenced the French painters. The result was
an Italianized school of French art which ruled in France
for many years. Frimaticcio was probably the greatest of
the influencers, remaining as he did for thirty years in
France. The native painters, Jean Cousin ( 1 500 ?-i 589) and
Toussaint du Breuil ( 1 56 i - 1 602) followed his style, and in the
next century the painters were even more servile imitators
of Italy — imitating not the best models either, but the Man-
nerists, the Eclectics, and the Roman painters of the De-
cadence.
SEVENTEENTH-CENTUKY PAINTING; This was a century of
great development and production in France, the time of
I'KKNHH r.MNIINC.
135
tlu' fiunulini;" nf the l''rciKli Acaikiiiy of I'aintini; and
SculpUirc, anil llic tdrnialion of many pitturc collcclioiis.
In the first part of the eentury the l''leniisli and native ten-
dencies existed, hut tliev were o\'era\\'ed, ontiunnheretl by
the Itahan. Not even Kubens's paintin;;" for Marie de'
Medlei, in tile palaee of the Iai\end)our)j;, coukl stem tlie
tide ot Italy. The l'"reneh painters llucked to Rome to
study the art of their j^reat predecessors and were led astray
by the llashy eley;ance of the late Italians. Among the
earliest of this century was Fr^minet (1567-1619). He was
first taught f)y his father and Jean Cousin, but afterward
FIG. 57. — CLAUDE LORRAIN. FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. DRESDEN.
spent fifteen years in Italy studying Parmigianino and
]Michael Angelo. His work had something of the Mannerist
style about it and was overwrought and exaggerated. In
136 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
shadows he seemed to have borrowed from Caravaggio.
Vouet (i 590-1649) was a student in Italy of Veronese's
painting and afterward of Guido Reni and Caravaggio. He
was a mediocre artist, but had a great vogue in France and
left many celebrated pupils.
By all odds the best painter of this time was Nicolas
Poussin (1593-1665). He lived almost all of his life in
Italy, and might be put down as an Italian of the Decadence.
He was well versed in classical archaeology, and had much
of the classic taste and feeling prevalent at that time in the
Roman school of Giulio Romano. His work showed great
intelligence and had an elevated grandiloquent style about
it that was impressive. It reflected nothing P"rench, and
had little more root in present human sympathy than any
I if the other painting of the time, but it was better done.
The drawing was correct if severe, the composition agree-
able if formal, the coloring variegated if violent. Many of
his pictures have now changed for the worse in coloring
owing to the dissipation of surface pigments. He was the
founder of the classic and academic in French art, and in
influence was the most important man of the century. He
was especially strong in the heroic landscape, and in this
branch helped form the style of his brother-in-law, Gaspard
(Dughet) Poussin (1613-1675).
The landscape painter of the period, however, was Claude
Lorrain (1600-1682). He differed from Poussin in making
his pictures depend more strictly upon landscape than upon
figures. With both painters, the trees, mountains, valleys,
buildings, figures, were of the grand classic variety. Hills
and plains, sylvan groves, flowing streams, peopled harbors,
Ionic and Corinthian temples, Roman aqueducts, mytholog-
ical groups, were the materials used, and the object of
their use was to show the ideal dwelling-place of man — the
former Garden of the Gods. Panoramic and slightly theat-
rical at times, Claude's work was not without its poetic side,
I'KKNCll rAINTlMi.
137
shrewd kiiowleilge, anil skilful execution. He was a leader
in landsca|>e, the man who first painted real golden sun-
light and shed its light ujion earth. There is a soft
summer's-day drowsiness, a golden haze of atmosphere, a
feeling of composure and restfulness about his pictures
that are attractive. Like Poussin he depended much upon
long sweeping lines in composition, and upon effects of
linear perspective.
COURT PAINTING; When Louis XIV. came to the throne
painting took on a decided character, but it was hardly
national or race character. The popular idea, if the people
had an idea, did not obtain. There was no motive spring-
ing from the French except an inclination to follow Italy;
138 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
and in Italy all the great art -motives were dead. In
method the French painters followed the late Italians, and
imitated an imitation ; in matter they bowed to the dictates
of the court and reflected the king's mock-heroic spirit.
Echoing the fashion of the day, painting became pompous,
theatrical, grandiloquent — a mass of vapid vanity utterly
lacking in sincerity and truth. Lebrun (1619-1690), painter
in ordinary to the king, directed substantially all the paint-
ing of the reign. He aimed at pleasing royalty with flatter-
ing allusions to Cffisarism and extravagant personifications
of the king as a classic conqueror. His art had neither
truth, nor genius, nor great skill, and so sought to startle
by subject or size. Enormous canvases of .Vlexander's
triumphs, in allusion to those of the great Louis, were
turned out to order, and Versailles to this day is tapestried
with battle - pieces in which Louis is always victor. Con-
sidering the amount of work done, Lebrun showed great
fecundity and industry, but none of it has much more than
a mechanical ingenuity about it. It was rather original in
composition, but poor in drawing, lighting, and coloring; and
its example upon the painters of the time was pernicious.
His contemporary, Le Sueur (1616-1655), was a more
sympathetic and smcere painter, if not a much better tech-
nician. Both were pupils of Vouet, but Le Sueur's art
was religious in subject, while Lebrun's was military and
monarchical. Le Sueur had a feeling for his theme, but
was a weak painter, inclined to the sentimental, thin in
coloring, and not at all certain in his drawing. French al-
lusions to him as " the French Raphael " show more na-
tional complacency than correctness. Sebastian Bourdon
(1616-1671) was another painter of history, but a little out
of the Lebrun circle. He was not, however, free from the
influence of Italy, where he spent three years studying
color more than drawing. This shows in his works, most
of which are lacking in form.
FRKNCll PAINTINO. 139
Conteniporarv with tlusc min was a turnup of portrail-
paiiUers who yaincil ci-lcbrily prrhaps as imuli b}' their
stibjccts as by thi-ir i)\vn powers. 'I lu'y were lacilc llat-
tcrcrs given t)vcr te) tlic pomps of the rcis^ii ami mirroring
all its absurelitics of fashion. Their work has a grareful,
smooth appearance, anil, for its time, it was undonbtcdly
e-\cellent pe)rtraitin'e. Even to this day it has cpialities of
drawing- and eeiloring to commend it, and at times one
meets with exceptionally good work. The leaders among
these j-iortrait-painters were Philip de Champaigfne (1602-
1674), the best of his time ; Pierre Mignard (1610 ?-i695), a
pupil of Nonet, who studied in Rome and afterward re-
turned to France to become the successful rival of Lebrun ;
Largillifere (1656-1746) and Rigaud (1659-1743).
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING: The painting of Louis
XIN'.'s time was continued into the eighteenth century for
some fifteen years or more with little change. N\'ith the
advent of Louis XV. art took upon itself another character,
and one that reflected perfectly the moral, social, and polit-
ical France of the eighteenth century. The first Louis
clamored for glory, the second Louis revelled in gayety,
frivolity, and sensuality. This was the difference between
both monarchs and both arts. The gay and the coquettish
in painting had already been introduced by the Regent,
himself a dilettante in art, and when Louis XV. came to the
throne it passed from the gay to the insipid, the flippant,
even the erotic. Shepherds and shepherdesses dressed in
court silks and satins with cottony sheep beside them posed
in stage- set Arcadias, pretty gods and goddesses reclined
indolently upon gossamer clouds, and court gallants lounged
under artificial trees by artificial ponds making love to
pretty soubrettes from the theatre.
Yet, in spite of the lack of moral and intellectual eleva-
tion, in spite of frivolity and make-believe, this art was in-
finitely better than the pompous imitation of foreign ex-
i40
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
ample set up by Louis XIV. It was more spontaneous,
more original, more French. The influence of Italy began
to fail, and the painters began to mirror French life. It
was largely court life, lively, vivacious, licentious, but in
that very respect characteristic of the time. Moreover,
there was another qualit)' about it that showed French taste
at its best — the decorative quality. It can hardly be sup-
FIG, 59- — EOl^CHER. PASTORAL. I.OaVRE.
posed that the fairy creations of the age were intended to
represent actual nature. They were designed to ornament
hall and boudoir, and in pure decorative delicacy of design,
lightness of touch, color charm, they have never been ex-
celled. The serious spirit was lacking, but the gayety of line
and color was well given.
Watteau (1684-1721) was the one chiefly responsible for
the coquette and soubrette of French art, and ^^'atteau was,
practically speaking, the first French painter. His subjects
FRENCH PATNTING. 14'
were trifling bits of fashionable love-making, scenes from
the oiK-ra, fetes, balls, and the like. All his characters
played at life in parks and yruves that never grew, and
most of his color was beautifully unreal ; but for all that the
work was original, decorative, and charming. Moreover,
W'atteau was a brushman, and introtluced not only a new
spirit and new subject into art, but a new method. The
epic treatment of the Italians was laid aside in favor of a
gc'/i'i- treatment, and instead of line and flat surface A\'attcau
introduced color and cleverly laid pigment. He was a
brilliant painter ; not a great man in thought or imagina-
tion, but one of fancy, delicacy, and skill. Unfortunately
he set a bad example by his gay subjects, and those who
came after him carried his gayety and lightness of spirit
into exaggeration. Watteau's best pupils were Lancret
(1690-1743) and Pater (1695-1736), who painted in his style
with fair results.
After these men came Van Loo (1705-1765) and Boucher
(1703-17 70), who turned Watteau's charming fetes, showing
the costumes and manners of the Regency, into flippant ex-
travagance. Not only was the moral tone and intellectual
stamina of their art far below that of Watteau, but their
workmanship grew defective. Both men possessed a re-
markable facility of the hand and a keen decorative color-
sense ; but after a time both became stereotyped and man-
nered. Drawing and modelling were neglected, light was
wholly conventional, and landscape turned into a piece of
embroidered background with a Dresden china-tapestry
effect about it. As decoration the general effect was often
excellent, as a serious expression of life it was very weak,
as an intellectual or moral force it was worse than worth-
less. Fragonard (1732-1806) followed in a similar style, but
was a more knowing man, clever in color, and a much freer
and better brushman.
A few painters in the time of Louis XV. remained appar-
142 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
ently unaffected b}' the court influence, and stand in con-
spicuous isolation. Claude Joseph Vernet (1712-1789) was a
landscape and marine painter of some repute in his time.
He had a sense of the pictorial, but not a remarkable sense
of the truthful in nature. Chardin (1699-1779) and Greuze
(1725-1S05), clung to portrayals of humble life and sought to
popularize the genre subject. Chardin was not appreciated
by the masses. His frank realism, his absolute sincerity of
purpose, his play of light and its effect upon color, and his
charming handling of textures were comparatively unnoticed.
Yet as a colorist he may be ranked second to none in French
art, and in freshness of handling his work is a model for
present-day painters. Diderot early recognized Chardin's
excellence, and many artists since his day have admired
his pictures ; but he is not now a well-known or popular
painter. The populace fancies CJreuze and his sentimental
heads of young girls. I'hey have a prettiness about them
that is attractive, but as art they lack in force, and in
workmanship they are too smooth, finical, and thin in
handling.
PRINCIPAL WORKS: All of these French painters are best represented
in the collections of the Louvre. Some of the other galleries, like the
Dresden, Berlin, and National at London, have examples of their work ;
but the masterpieces are with the French people in the Louvre and m the
other municipal galleries of France.
CHAPTER xin.
FRKNCII PAINTING.
THIC NINK'IK.KN'III CF.NTURV.
Books Recommended : As before, Stranahan, et al.; also
Ralliere, Hiiii-i Rt;^iiatilt; Blanc, Lcs Artistes de nwn Temps;
Hlanc, Histoire Jes I'ciiitres /raii(ais lUi XIX"" Siecle; Blanc,
Ingres et son (.Eiivre : ISigot, Peintres fraii(ais co)ite)nporaiiis ;
Breton, La lie el'iiii Artiste (^English Translation): Brownell,
Freneli Art; Burty, Maitres et Fetit-Maitres;_ Chesneau,
Peinture fra)i(aise au XIX"" Steele; Clement, Etudes sur les
Beaux Arts en France; Clement, Prudhon; Delaborde,
(Euvre de Paul Delaroche ; Delecluze, Jacques Louis David,
son Eeole, et son Temps; Duret, Les Peintres franfais en i86j ;
Gautier, EArt Aloderne; Gautier, Romantieisine ; Gonse,
Eugene Fronientin ; Hamerton, Contemporary French Fainting ;
Hamerton, Painting in France after the Decline of Classicism ;
Henley, Memorial Catalogue of French and Dutch Loan Col-
lection (1886); Henriet, Charles Daubigny et son CEuvre ;
Lenormant, Les Artistes Contemporains ; Lenormant, Ary
Scheffer ; Merson, Ingres, sa Vie et^ son CEuvre ;^ Moreau,
Decamps et son (Euvre ; Blanche, Etudes sur I'Fcole fran-
caise ; Robaut et Chesneau, L' CEuvre complet d' Eugene Dela-
croix ; Sensier, Theodore Rousseau ; Sensier, Life and JJ'^orhs
of J. F. Alillet ; Silvestre, Histoire des Artistes vivants et
etrangers ; Strahan, Modern French Art; There, L'Art Con-
temporain ; Theuriet, Jules Bastien-Lepage ; Van Dyke, Mod-
ern French Masters.
THE EEVOLUTIONAEY TIME : In considering this century's
art in Europe, it must be remembered that a great social
and intellectual change has taken place since the days of
the Medici. The power so long pent up in Italy during the
Renaissance finally broke and scattered itself upon the
144
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
western nations ; societies and states were torn down and
rebuilded, political, social, and religious ideas shifted into
new garbs ; the old order passed away.
Religion as an art -motive, or even as an art -subject,
ceased to obtain anywhere. The Church failed as an art-
patron, and the walls of cloister and cathedral furnis'hed no
new Bible readings to the unlettered. Painting, from being
FIG. 60. — D.WID. THE SABINES. LOUVRE.
a necessity of life, passed into a luxury, and the king, the
state, or the private collector became the patron. Nature
and actual life were about the only sources left from which
original art could draw its materials. These have been
freely used, but not so much in a national as in an indi-
vidual manner. The tendency to-day is not to put forth a
universal conception but an individual belief. Individualism
— the same quality that appeared so strongly in Michael
Angelo's art — has become a keynote in modern work. It
FRENCH PAINTING. 145
is not the only kind of art that has liecn shown in this cen-
turv, nor is nature the only theme from wiiich art lias been
derived. We must remember and consider the influence of
the past upon modern men, and the attempts to restore the
classic beauty of the Greek, Roman, and Italian, which prac-
tically ruled French painting in the first part of this century.
FRENCH CLASSICISM OF DAVID: This was a revival of Creek
form in art, founded on the belief expressed by W'inckel-
mann, that beauty lay in form, and was best shown by the
ancient dreeks. It was the objective view of art which saw
beauty in the external and tolerated no individuality in the
artist except that which was shown in technical skill. It
was little more than an imitation of the Greek and Roman
marbles as types, with insistence upon perfect form, correct
drawing, and balanced composition. In theme and spirit it
was pseudo-heroic, the incidents of Greek and Roman his-
tory forming the chief subjects, and in method it rather
despised color, light-and-shade, and natural surroundings.
It was elevated, lofty, ideal in aspiration, but coldly unsym-
pathetic because lacking in contemporary interest ; and,
though correct enough in classic form, was lacking in the
classic spirit. Like all reanimated art, it was derivative as
regards its forms and lacking in spontaneity. The reason
for the existence of Greek art died with its civilization, and
those, like the French classicists, who sought to revive it,
brought a copy of the past into the present, expecting the
world to accept it.
There was some social, and perhaps artistic, reason, how-
ever, for the revival of the classic in the French art of the
late eighteenth century. It was a revolt, and at that time
revolts were popular. The art of Boucher and Van Loo
had become quite unbearable. It was flippant, careless,
licentious. It had no seriousness or dignity about it.
Moreover, it smacked of the Bourbon monarchy, which
people had come to hate. Classicism was severe, elevated,
10
146 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
respectable at least, and had the air of the heroic republic
about it. It was a return to a sterner view of life, with
the martial spirit behind it as an impetus, and it had a
great vogue. For many years during the Revolution, the
Consulate, and the Empire, classicism was accepted by the
sovereigns and the Institute of France, and to this day it
lives in a modified form in that semi-classic work known as
academic art.
THE CLASSIC SCHOOL: Vien (17 1 6-1 809) was the first painter
to protest against the art of Boucher and Van Loo by advo-
cating more nobility of form and a closer study of nature.
He was, however, more devoted to the antique forms he
had studied in Rome than to nature. In subject and lin^
his tendency was classic, with a leaning toward the Italians
of the Decadence. He lacked the force to carry out a
complete reform in painting, but his pupil David (i 748-1 825)
accomplished what he had begun. It was David who
established the reign of classicism, and by native power
became the leader. The time was appropriate, the Revolu-
tion called for pictures of Romulus, Brutus and Achilles,
and Napoleon encouraged the military theme. David had
studied the marbles at Rome, and he used them largely for
models, reproducing scenes from Greek and Roman life in
an elevated and sculpturesque style, with much archaeo-
logical knowledge and a great deal of skill. In color,
relief, sentiment, individuality, his painting was lacking.
He despised all that. The rhythm of line, the sweep of
composed groups, the heroic subject and the heroic treat-
ment, made up his art. It was thoroughly objective, and
what contemporary interest it possessed lay largely in the
martial spirit then prevalent. Of course it was upheld by
the Institute, and it really set the pace for French paint-
ing for nearly half a century. When David was called
upon to paint Napoleonic pictures he painted them under
protest, and yet these, with his portraits, constitute his
I'KKNCII rAFNTlNC.
»47
best work. In puitraiUire lie was iinconunoiily strong at
tinii's.
Alter the Restoration Itavid, who luul been a revolution-
ist, and then an adherent of Napoleon, was sent into exile ;
but the inlluenee he had left and the sehool he had estab-
lished were earried on b_v his contemporaries and pupils.
Of the former Regnault (1754-1829), Vincent (1746-1 8 16),
and Prudhon (1 758-1 S23) w'ere the most conspicuous. The
last one was considered as out of the classic circle, but so
far as making his art depend upon drawing and composition.
rEDIl'LS AND SPHINX. LOIXRE.
he was a genuine classicist. His subjects, instead of being
heroic, inclined to the mythological and the allegorical. In
Italy he had been a student of the Renaissance painters,
^ndfrom them borrowed a method of shadow gradation that
148 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
rendered his figures misty and pliantom-like. They possessed
an ease of movement sometimes called " Prudhonesque
grace," and in composition were well placed and effective.
Of David's pupils there were many. Only a few of
them, however, had pronounced ability, and even these
carried David's methods into the theatrical. Girodet
(i 766-1 824) was a draughtsman of considerable power,
but with poor taste in color and little repose in composi-
tion. Most of his work was exaggeration and strained
effect. LetM6re (1760-1832) and Gu^rin (1774-1833), pupils
of Regnault, were painters akin to Girodet, but inferior to
him. Gerard (i 770-1837) was a weak David follower, who
gained some celebrity by painting portraits of celebrated
men and women. The two pupils of David who brought
him the most credit were Ingres (1780-1867) and Gros
(1771-1835). Ingres was a cold, persevering man, whose
principles had been well settled by David early in life, and
were adhered to with conviction by the pupil to the last.
He modified the classic subject somewhat, studied Raphael
and the Italians, and reintroduced the single figure into
art (the Source, and the Odalisque, for example). For
color he had no fancy. "In nature all is form," he used to
say. Painting he thought not an independent art, but " a
development of sculpture." To consider emotion, color,
or light as the equal of form was monstrous, and to compare
Rembrandt with Raphael was blasphemy. To this belief
he clung to the end, faithfully reproducing the human
figure, and it is not to be wondered at that eventually he
became a learned draughtsman. His single figures and his
portraits show him to the best advantage. He had a
strong grasp of modelling and an artistic sense of the beauty
and dignity of line not excelled by any artist of this century.
And to him more than any other painter is due the cult-
ured draughtsmanship which is to-day the just pride of the
French school.
FKKNCII rAINTINC. '49
("ii-os was a more vacillatiiii; nian, and by rrason f)f forsak-
ing;- the classic subjccl for Nai)(>li'onicl)atlle-piL-C(.'S, lie uncoii-
scioLisly led tlie \\a\' toward roinaiitieisin. He exeelled as
a drauglusman, hut wlieii he came to paint tlie l''ield of
Kylau anil the I'est of Jaffa he niin.nled color, lij,dit, ^lir,
movement, action, sacrillcint;' classic composition and repose
tt) realitv. 'I'his was heresy from the Davidian point of
view, and l)a\id eventually convinced him of it. (Iros
returned to the classic theme and treatment, but soon after
was so reviled by the chan<,nng criticism of the time that
he committed suicide in the Seine. His art, however, was
the beginning of romanticism.
The landscape painting of this time was rather academic
and unsympathetic. It was a continuation of the Ciaude-
Poussin tradition, and in its insistence upon line, grandeur
of space, and imp(_>sing trees and mountains, was a fit com-
panion to the classic figure-piece. It had little basis in
nature, and little in color or feeling to commend it. Watelet
(1780-1866), Bertin (1 775-1842), Michallon (i 796-1 S22), and
Aliguy (i 798-1871), were its exponents.
A few painters seemed to stand apart from the contempo-
rary influences. Madame Vigee-Lebrun (i 755-1842), a suc-
cessful portrait-painter of nobility, and Horace Vernet (i 789-
1S63), a popular battle-painter, many of whose works are to
be seen at Versailles, were of this class.
ROMANTICISM: The movement in French painting which
began about 1822 and took the name of Romanticism was
but a part of the " storm-and-stress " feeling that swept
Germany, England, and France at the beginning of thiscen-
turv, appearing first in literature and afterward in art. It
had its origin in a discontent with the present, a passionate
yearning for the unattainable, an intensity of sentiment,
gloomy melancholy imaginings, and a desire to express the
ine.x-pressible. It was emphatically subjective, self-con-
scious, a mood of mind or feeling. In this respect it was
ISO
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
diametrically opposed to the academic and the classic. In
French painting it came forward in opposition to the clas-
m
'/"M
FIG. 62. — DELACROIX. MASSACRE OF SCIO.
sicism of David. People had begun to weary of Greek and
Roman heroes and their deeds, of impersonal line-bounded
statuesque art. There was a demand for something more
representative, spontaneous, expressive of the intense feel-
ing of the time. The very gist of romanticism was pas-
sion. Freedom to express itself in what form it would was
a condition of its existence.
The classic subject was abandoned by the romanticists
for dramatic scenes of medieval and modern times. The
romantic hero and heroine in scenes of horror, perils by land
and sea, flame and fury, love and anguish, came upon the
FRENCH PAINTINC. 15'
boards. IMucli of this was ilUislratioii i)f liislory, the novel,
aiul poctr\', cs[K'ciaily tlir poclr\' of (loctlic, Ijyi'on, and
Scott, l.incwas skirrcil in favor oC color, symmetrical com-
position gave \va\' to uikl disordered j^roiips in headlong
action, and atmospheres, skies, and lights were twisted and
distorted to convey the sentiment of the story. It was
tluis, more liv suggestion than realization, that rf)nianticism
sought to give the poetic sentiment of life. Its position
toward classicism was antagonistic, a rebound, a flying to
the other extreme. One virtually said that beauty was in
the r.reek form, the other that it was in the painter's emo-
tional nature. The disagreement was violent, and out of it
grew the so-calletl romantic quarrel of the iS2o's.
LEADERS OF KOMANTICISM : Symptoms of the coming move-
ment were apparent long before any open revolt, (iros had
made innovations on the classic in his battle-pieces, but the
first positive dissent from classic teachings was made in the
Salon of 1S19 by Gericatilt (1791-1824) with his Raft of the
Medusa. It represented the starving, the dead, and the dy-
ing of the Medusa's crew on a raft in mid-ocean. The sub-
ject was not classic. It was literary, romantic, dramatic,
almost theatric in its seizing of the critical moment. Its
theme was restless, harrowing, horrible. It met with in-
stant opposition from the old men and applause from the
voung men. It was the trumpet-note of the revolt, but
(iericault did not live long enough to become the leader of
romanticism. That position fell to his contemporary and
fellow-pupil, Delacroix (1799-1863). It was in 1822 that
Delacroix's first Salon picture (the Dante and Virgil) ap-
peared. A strange, ghost-like scene from Dante's Inferno,
the black atmosphere of the nether world, weird faces,
weird colors, weird flames, and a modelling of the figures by
patches of color almost savage as compared to the tinted
drawing of classicism. Delacroix's youth saved the picture
from condemnation, but it was different with his Massacre of
153 HISTORY OF TAINTING.
Scio two years later. This was decried by the classicists, and
even Gros called it " the massacre of art." The painter was
accused of establishing the worship of the ugly, he was no
draughtsman, had no selection, no severity, nothing but bru-
tality. But Delacroix was as obstinate as Ingres, and declared
that the whole world could not prevent him from seeing and
painting things in his own way. It was thus the quarrel
started, the young men siding with Delacroi.x, the older men
following David and Ingres.
In himself Delacroix embodied all that was best and
strongest in the romantic movement. His painting was in-
tended to convey a romantic mood of mind by combinations
of color, light, air, and the like. In subject it was tragic
and passionate, like the poetry of Hugo, Byron, and Scott.
The figures were usually given with anguish-wrung brows,
wild eyes, dishevelled hair, and impetuous, contorted action.
The painter never cared for technical details, seeking al-
ways to gain the effect of the whole rather than the exact-
ness of the part. He purposely slurred drawing at times,
and was opposed to formal composition. In color he was
superior, though somewhat violent at times, and in brush-
work he was often labored and patchy. His strength lay in
imagination displayed in color and in action.
The quarrel between classicism and romanticism lasted
some years, with neither side victorious. Delacroix won rec-
ognition for his view of art, but did not crush the belief in
form which was to come to the surface again. He fought
almost alone. Many painters rallied around him, but
they added little strength to the new movement. Dev^ria
(1S05-1865) and Champmartin (i 797-1883) were highly
thought of at first, but they rapidly degenerated. Sig-alon
(1788-1837), Cogniet (1794-1SS0), Robert - Fleury (1797-),
and Boulanger (i 806-1 867), were romanticists, but achieved
more as teachers than as painters. Delaroche (1797- 1856)
was an eclectic — in fact, founded a school of that name —
FRENCH rAlNTING.
153
thinking t(i take what was best Uom both parties. Iiiveiit-
ini; iiotliiiit;, he prolUed by all iiiveiitetl. lie employed the
ronuuitic subjeet anil eolor, but adhered to elassie drawing.
Mis coni]iosition Wds good, his eostunie careful in detail,
his lirush-work sniootli, and his story-telling capacity ex-
ceUent. .Ml these iiualities made him a popular ]iainter,
but not an original or powerful one. Ary Scheffer (1797-
FIG. 63. — GEROMH. KOLLICE VERSO,
1S5S) was an illustrator of Goethe and Byron, frail in both
sentiment and color, a painter who started as a romanticist,
but afterward developed line under Ingres.
THE OEIENTALISTS : In both literature and painting one
phase of romanticism showed itself in a love for the life,
the light, the color of the Orient. From Paris Decamps
(1S03-1860) was the first painter to visit the East and paint
Eastern life. He was a genre painter more than a figure
painter, giving naturalistic street scenes in Turkey and Asia
Minor, courts, and interiors, with great feeling for air,
154 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
warmth of color, and light. At about the same time Maril-
hat (1811-1847) was in Egypt picturing the life of that
country in a similar manner ; and later, Fromentin (1820-
1876), painter and writer, following Delacroix, went to Al-
giers and portrayed there Arab life with fast-flying horses,
the desert air, sky, light, and color. Theodore Frere and
Ziem belong further on in the century, but were no less ex-
ponents of romanticism in the East.
Fifteen years after the starting of romanticism the move-
ment had materially subsided. It had never been a school
in the sense of having rules and laws of art. Liberty of
thought and perfect freedom for individual expression were
all it advocated. As a result there was no unity, for there
was nothing to unite upon ; and with every painter paint-
ing as he pleased, regardless of law, extravagance was
inevitable. This was the case, and when the next gen-
eration came in romanticism began to be ridiculed for
its excesses. A reaction started in favor of more line
and academic training. This was first shown by the stu-
dents of Delaroche, though there were a number of move-
ments at the time, all of them leading away from roman-
ticism. A recoil from too much color in favor of more
form was inevitable, but romanticism was not to perish
entirely. Its influence was to go on, and to appear in the
work of later men.
ECLECTICS AND TRANSITIONAL PAINTERS: After Ingres his
follower Flandrin (i 809-1 864) was the most considerable
draughtsman of the time. He was not classic but religious
in subject, and is sometimes called " the religious painter
of France." He had a delicate beauty of line and a fine
feeling for form, but never was strong in color, brushwork,
or sentiment. His best work appears in his very fine por-
traits. Gleyre (i 806-1 874) was a man of classic methods,
but romantic tastes, who modified the heroic into the
idyllic and mythologic. He was a sentimental day-dreamer,
FRENCH PAINTING. I 55
with a touch of melanclioly about the vanished past, ap-
pearing" in Arcadian fancies, pretty nymphs, and ideahzed
memories ot \outh. hi execution lie was not at all ro-
mantic. His color was pale, his drawing delicate, and his
lighting- misty and uncertain. It was the etherealized
classic niethoil, and this method he transmitted to a little
band of painters called the
NEW-GREEKS, who, in point of time, belong much further
along in the century, but in their art are with (ileyre.
'I'heir work never rose above the idyllic and the graceful, and
calls for no special mention. Hamon (1821-1874) and Aubert
(1S24-) belonged to the band, and G6r6me (1824-*) was at one
time its leader, but he afterward emerged from it to a higher
place in French art, where he will find mention hereafter.
Couture (1815-1879) stood quite by himself, a mingling of
several influences. His chief picture. The Romans of the
Decadence, is classic in subject, romantic in sentiment
(and this very largely expressed by warmth of color), and
rather realistic in natural appearance. He was an eclectic
in a wav, and yet seems to stand as the forerunner of a
large body of artists who find classification hereafter under
the title of the Semi-Classicists.
PRINCIPAL WORKS: All the painters mentioned in this chapter are
best represented in the Louvre at Paris, at Versailles, and in the museums
of the chief French cities. Some works of the late or living men may be
found in the Luxembourg, where pictures bought by the state are kept
for ten years after the painter's death, and then are either sent to the
Louvre or to the other municipal galleries of France. Some pictures by
these men are also to be seen in the Metropolitan Museum, New York.
the Boston Museum, and the Chicago Art Institute.
* Died, 1904.
CHAPTER XIV.
FRENCH PAINTING.
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY {Continued).
Books Recommended : The books before mentioned, con-
sult also General Bibliography, (page xv.)
THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: The influence of either the
classic or romantic example may be traced in almost all of
the French painting of this century. The opposed teach-
ings find representatives in new men, and under different
names the modified dispute goes on — the dispute of the aca-
demic versus the individual, the art of form and line versus
the art of sentiment and color. . . ■
With the classicism of David not only the figure but the
landscape setting of it, took on an ideal heroic character.
Trees and hills and rivers became supernaturally grand and
impressive. Everything was elevated by method to produce
an imaginary Arcadia fit for the deities of the classic world.
'I'he result was that nature and the humanity of the painter
passed out in favor of school formula and academic tradi-
tions. When romanticism came in this was changed, but
nature falsified in another direction. Landscape was given an
interest in human affairs, and made to look gay or sad, peace-
ful or turbulent, as the day went well or ill with the hero of
the story portrayed. It was, however, truer to the actual
than the classic, more studied in the parts, more united in
the whole. About the year 1830 the influence of roman-
ticism began to show in a new landscape art. That is to
FRENCH PAINTINC.
157
saV, the emotional impulse springing from romanticism com-
bined with the stinl\- of the old Dutch landscapists, and the
English contemporary painters, Constable and ISonington,
FIG. 04. — COROT. TANn=;CAPK.
set a large number of painters to the close study of nature
and ultimatelv developed what has been vaguely called the
FONTAINEBLEAU-BAEBIZON SCHOOL: 'I'his whole school was
primarily devoted to showing the sentiment of color and
light. It took nature just as it found it in the forest of
Fontainebleau, on the plain of Barbizon, and elsewdiere, and
treated it with a poetic feeling for light, shadow, atmos-
phere, color, that resulted in the best landscape painting
yet known to us.
Corot (i 796-1 S75) though classically trained under Bertin,
and though somewhat apart from the other men in his life,
belongs with this group. He was a man wdiose artistic life
was filled with the beauty of light and air. These he painted
with great singleness of aim and great poetic charm. Most
of his work is in a light silvery key of color, usually slight
IS8 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
in composition, simple in masses of light and dark, and very
broadly but knowingly handled with the brush. He began
painting by using the minute brush, but changed it later on
for a freer style which recorded only the great omnipresent
truths and suppressed the small ones. He has never had
a superior in producing the permeating light of morning
and evening. For this alone, if for no other excellence, he
deservedly holds high rank.
Rousseau (i8i 2-1867) was one of the foremost of the rec-
ognized leaders, and probably the most learned landscap-
ist of this century. A man of many moods and methods he
produced in variety with rare versatility. Much of his work
was experimental, but at his best he had a majestic concep-
tion of nature, a sense of its power and permanence, its
volume and mass, that often resulted in the highest quality
of pictorial poetry. In color he was rich and usually warm,
in technic firm and individual, in sentiment at times quite
sublime. At first he painted broadly and won friends
among the artists and sneers from the public ; then in his
middle style he painted in detail, and had a period of popu-
lar success ; in his late style he went back to the broad
manner, and died amid quarrels and vexations of spirits.
His long-time friend and companion, Jules Dupre (1812-
1S89), hardly reached up to him, though a strong painter
in landscape and marine. He was a good but not great
colorist, and, technically, his brush was broad enough but
sometimes heavy. His late work is inferior in sentiment
and labored in handling. Diaz (1808-1876) was allied to
Rousseau in aim and method, though not so sure nor so pow-
erful a painter. He had fancy and variety in creation that
sometimes ran to license, and in color he was clear and brill-
iant. Never very well trained, his drawing is often indif-
ferent and his light distorted, but these are more than
atoned for by delicacy and poetic charm. At times he
painted with much power. Daubigny (1817-1878) seemed
FRENCH PAINTING. 159
mure like Corcit in his charm of slylc and love of atmos-
phere and liglu tliaii any of the otiiers. He was fond of
tile banks of tlie Seine and tlie Marne at twilight, witli even-
ins;' atmospheres and dark trees standing in silent ranks
against the warm sky. He was also foiiil of the gray (.lay
along the coast, anil even the sea attracted hini not a little.
He was a painter of high abilities, and in treatment strongly
individual, even distinguished, by his simplicity and direct-
ness. Unity of the whole, grasp of the mass entire, was his
teclmical aim, and this he sought to get not so much by
line as b\' color-tones of varying value. In this respect he
seemed a connecting link between Corot and the present-
day impressionists. Michel (1763-1842), Huet (1804-1869),
Chintreuil (1814-1873), and Francais (1S14-) were all allied
in point of view with this group of landscape painters, and
among the late men who have carried out their beliefs are
Cazin, Yon, Damoye, Pointelin. Harpignies and Pelouse *
seem a little more inclined to the realistic than the poetic
view, though producing work of much virility and intelli-
gence.
Contemporary and associated with the Fontainebleau
painters were a number of men who won high distinction as
PAINTERS OF ANIMALS : Troyon (1810-1865) ^^'^s the most
prominent among them. His work shows the same senti-
ment of light and color as the Fontainebleau landscapists,
and with it there is much keen insight into animal life. As
a technician he was rather hard at first, and he never was a
correct draughtsman, but he had a way of giving the char-
acter of the objects he portrayed which is the very essence
of truth. He did many landscapes with and without cattle.
His best pupil was Van Marcke (1827-1890), who followed
his methods but never possessed the feeling of his master.
Jacque (1S13-*) is also of the Fontainebleau-Barbizon group,
and is justly celebrated for his paintings and etchings of
sheep. The poetry of the school is his, and techni-caUy he
* Died 1890.
i6o
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
is fine in color at times, if often rather dark in illumination.
Like Troyon he knows his subject well, and can show the
nature of sheep with true feeling. Rosa Bonheur (1822-*)
and her brother, Aug^uste Bonheur (1824- 1884), have both
dealt with animal life, but never with that fine artistic
feeling which would warrant their popularity. Their work
is correct enough, but prosaic and commonplace in spirit.
They do not belong in the same group with Troyon and
Rousseau.
THE PEASANT PAINTERS: Allied again in feeling and senti-
ment with the Fontainebleau landscapists were some cele-
brated painters of peasant life, chief among whom stood
FIG. 65. — ROUSSEAU, CHARCOAI. BURNERS* HUT. Flll.KER COLLECTION'.
Millet (i 814-1875), of Barbizon. The pictoral inclination of
Millet was early grounded by a study of Delacroix, the
master romanticist, and his work is an expression of roman-
* Died, iSgg.
FRENCH PAINTING. l6l
ticism modified by an individual study of nature and applied
to peasant life. He was peasant born, livinj^ and dyiny at
Barbi/on, synipathizin;^ with his class, and painting them
with great [loelie force aiul siniplicit)'. His sentiment
sometimes has a literary bias, as in his far-famed but indif-
ferent .Vngelus, but usually it is strictly pictorial and has to
i\o witli the beauty of light, air, color, motion, life, as shown
in 'I'he Sower or 'I'he Cileaners. 'reehnically he was not
strong as a draughtsman or a brushman, but he had a large
feeling for form, great simplicity in line, keen perception of
tlie relations of light and (.lark, and at times an excellent
color-sense. He was virtually the discoverer of the peas-
ant as an art subject, and for this, as for his original point
of view and artistic feeling, he is ranked as one of the fore-
most artists of the century.
Jtiles Breton (1827-), though painting little besides the
peasantry, is no Millet follower, for he started painting
peasant scenes at about the same time as Millet. His af-
finities were with the New-Greeks early in life, and ever
since he has inclined toward the academic in style, though
handling the rustic subject. He is a good technician, ex-
cept in his late work ; but as an original thinker, as a pic-
torial poet, he does not show the intensity or profundity of
]\fillet. The followers of the Millet-Breton tradition are
many. The blue-frocked and sabot-shod peasantry have
appeared in salon and gallery for twenty years and more,
but with not very good results. The imitators, as usual,
have caught at the subject and missed the spirit. Billet
and Legros, contemporaries of Millet, still living, and Lerolle,
a man of present-day note, are perhaps the most consider-
able of the painters of rural subjects to-day.
THE SEMI-CLASSICISTS : It must not be inferred that the
classic influence of David and Ingres disappeared from view
with the coming of the romanticists, the Fontainebleau
landscapists, and the Barbizon painters. On the contrary,
II
1 62 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
side by side with these men, and opposed to them, were the
believers in line and academic formulas of the beautiful.
The whole tendency of academic art in France was against
Delacroix, Rousseau, and Millet. During their lives they
were regarded as heretics in art and without the pale of the
Academy. Their art, however, combined with nature study
and the realism of Courbet, succeeded in modifying the
severe classicism of Ingres into what has been called semi-
classicism. It consists in the elevated, heroic, or historical
theme, academic form well drawn, some show of bright
colors, smoothness of brush-work, and precision and nicety
of detail. In treatment it attempts the realistic, but in
spirit it is usually stilted, cold, unsympathetic.
Cabanel (1823-1889) and Bouguereau (1825-) have both
represented semi-classic art well. They are justly ranked as
famous draughtsmen and good portrait-painters, but their
work always has about it the stamp of the academy machine,
a something done to order, knowing and exact, but lacking
in the personal element. It is a weakness of the academic
method that it virtually banishes the individuality of eye
and hand in favor of school formulas. Cabanel and Bougue-
reau have painted many incidents of classic and historic
story, but with never a dash of enthusiasm or a suggestion
of the great qualities of painting. Their drawing has been
as thorough as could be asked for, but their colorings have
been harsh and their brushes cold and thin.
G6r6me (1824-*) is a man of classic training and inclina-
tion, but his versatility hardly allows him to be classified
anywhere. He was first a leader of the New-Greeks, paint-
ing delicate mythological subjects ; then a historical painter,
showing deaths of Caesar and the like ; then an Orientalist,
giving scenes from Cairo and Constantinople ; then a genre
painter, depicting contemporary subjects in the many lands
through which he has travelled. Whatever he has done
shows semi-classic drawing, ethnological and archseological
♦ Died, 1904.
FKENCIt I'MNTINC.
163
knowledge, Parisian teciiiiic, and exact detail. His travels
have not changed iiis precise scientific point of view, lie
is a true academician at bottom, but a more versatile and
cultured [Xiinter than either Cabanel or iSoLijjjuereau, lie
ilraws well, sometimes uses cohjr well, and is an excellent
painter of textures. .\ man of ^real learning in many de-
partments he is no painter to be sneered at, and yet not a
nLEANEK'-^. I.niiVRR.
painter to make the pulse beat faster or to arouse the
resthetic etnotions. His work is impersonal, olijective fact,
showing a brilliant exterior but inwardly devoid of feeling.
Paul Baudry (1828-1886), though a disciple of line, was
not precisely a semi-classicist, and perhaps for that reason
was superior to any of the academic painters of his time.
He was a follower of the old masters in Rome more than
the Rcole J(s Beaux Arts. His subjects, aside from many
splendid portraits, were almost all classical, allegorical, or
mythological. He was a fine draughtsman, and, what is more
1 64 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
remarkable in conjunction therewith, a fine colorist. He was
hardly a great originator, and had not passion, dramatic
force, or much sentiment, except such as may be found in
his delicate coloring and rhythm of line. Nevertheless he was
an artist to be admired for his purity of purpose and breadth
of accomplishment. His chief work is to be seen in the
Opera at Paris. Puvis de Chavannes (1824-*) is quite a dif-
ferent style of painter, and is remarkable for fine delicate
tones of color which hold their place well on wall or ceiling,
and for a certain grandeur of composition. In his desire to
revive the monumental painting of the Renaissance he has
met with much praise and much blame. He is an artist of
sincerity and learning, and as a wall-painter has no superior
in contemporary France.
Hubert (1817-), an early painter of academic tendencies,
and Henner (1829-), fond of form and yet a brushman with
an idyllic feeling for light and color in dark surroundings,
are painters who may come under the semi-classic group-
ing, lefebvre (1834-) is probably the most pronounced in
academic methods among the present men, a draughtsman
of ability.
PORTEAIT AND FIGURE PAINTEKS: Under this heading may
be included those painters who stand by themselves, showing
no positive preference for either the classic or romantic fol-
lowings. Bonnat (1S33-) has painted all kinds of subjects —
^cnrc^ figure, and historical pieces — but is perhaps best known
as a portrait-painter. He has done forcible work. Some
of it indeed is astonishing in its realistic modelling — the ac-
centuation of light and shadow often causing the figures to
advance unnaturally. From this feature and from his de-
tail he has been known for years as a " realist." His ana-
tomical Christ on the Cross and mural paintings in the
Pantheon are examples. As a portrait-painter he is accept-
able, if at times a little raw in color. Another portrait-
painter of celebrity is Carolus-Duran (1837-). He is rather
* Died, i3.j8.
FRENCH rAlNTING. 1O5
startling at times in his portrayal of rohrs and ilrapcriis,
has a facility of the brusli that is fre(|uenlly deeeptive, and
in color is sonietinies \i\id. He has liatl great sm cess as a
teacher, and is, all told, a painter of high rank. Delaunay
(1828-189:) in late years painted little liesides portraits, and
was one of the conseryatiyes of French art. Laurens (1S3S-)
has been more of a historical painter than the others, and has
dealt largely with ileath scenes. He is often spoken of as
" the painter of the deatl," a man of sound training and ex-
cellent technical po\\'er. Regnault (1843-1871) was a figure
and ,;,■'■"'"'■ painter with much feeling for oriental light and
color, who unfortunately «as killed in battle at twenty-seven
years of age. He was an artist of promise, and has left
several notable canvases. Among the younger men who
portray the historical subject in an elevated style mention
should be made of Cormon (1845-), Benjamin-Constant
(1845-), and Rochegrosse. As ])ainters of portraits Aman-
Jean and Carrifere have long held rank, and each succeed-
ing Salon brings new portraitists to the front.
THE REALISTS: About the time of the appearance of Mil-
let, sav 1S48, there also came to the front a man who
scorned both classicism and romanticism, and maintained
that the only model and subject of art should be nature.
This man, Courbet (1S19-1878), really gave a third tendency
to the art of this century in France, and his influence un-
doubtedly had much to do with modifying both the classic
and romantic tendencies. Courbet \vas a man of arrogant,
dogmatic disposition, and was quite heartily detested during
his life, but that he was a painter of great ability few will
deny. His theory was the abolition of both sentiment and
academic law, and the taking of nature just as it was, with all
its beauties and all its deformities. This, too, was his practice
to a certain extent. His art is material, and yet at times lofty
in conception even to the sublime. And while he believed in
realism he did not believe in petty detail, but rather in the
* Died, 1902.
1 66
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
great truths of nature. These he saw with a discerning eye
and portrayed with a masterful brush. He believed in what
he saw only, and had more the observing than the reflect-
FIG. 67. — CABANEL. PHAEDRA.
ive or emotional disposition. As a technician he was coarse
but superbly strong, handling sky, earth, air, with the ease
and power of one well trained in his craft. His subjects
were many — the peasantry of France, landscape, and the
sea holding prominent places — and his influence, though
not direct because he had no pupils of consequence, has
been most potent with the late men.
The young painter of to-day who does things in a " realis-
tic " way is frequently met with in French art. L'hermitte
(1844-), Julien Dupre (1851-), and others have handled the
the peasant subject with skill, after the Millet-Courbet
initiative; and Bastien-Lepage (1S48-1 884) excited a good
deal of admiration in his lifetime for the truth and evident
sincerity of his art. Bastien's point of view was realistic
FRKNCII I'AINTINC;. 1^7
enouy;h, but somewhat material. He never handled the
larye eomposition with suceess, but in small pieces and in
portraits he was i[uite above criticism. His followiu)^
among the young men was considerable, and the so-called
im]-)ressionists have ranked him among their disciples or
leaders.
PAINTERS OF MILITARY SCENES, GENRE, ETC: The art of
Meissonier (1S15-1S91), while extremely realistic in modern
detail, probably originated from a study of the seven-
teenth-century Dutchmen like Terburg and Metsu. It
does not portray low life, but rather the half - aristocratic
— the scholar, the cavalier, the gentleman oi leisure. This
IS done on a small scale with microscopic nicety, and really
more in the historical than the (^e/in- spirit. Single figures
and interiors were his preference, but he also painted a cycle
of Napoleonic battle-pictures with much force. There is
little or no sentiment about his work — little more than in that
ofderome. His success lay in exact technical accomplish-
ment. He drew well, painted well, and at times was a su-
perior colorist. His art is more admired by the public than
by the painters ; but even the latter do not fail to praise his
skill of hand. He was a great craftsman in the infinitely
little. As a great artist his rank is still open to question.
'l"he .i,v//rt' painting of fashi(jnable life has been carried out
by many followers of INIeissonier, whose names need not be
mentioned since they have not improved upon their fore-
runner. Toulmouclie (1829-), Leloir (1843-1884), Vibert
(1S40-), Bargue (?-i8S3), and others, though somewhat
different from Meissonier, belong among those painters of
;^ciire who love detail, costumes, stories, and pretty faces.
Among the painters of military gt'iire mention should be
made of De Neuville (1836-18S5), Berne-Bellecour (183S-),
Detaille (1848-), and Aim^-Morot (1850-), all of them
painters of merit.
Quite a different style of painting — half figure-piece half
l68 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
genre — is to be found in the work of Ribot (1823-), a strong
painter, remarkable for his apposition of high flesh lights
with deep shadows, after the manner of Ribera, the Spanish
painter. Roybet ( i 840-) is fond of rich stuffs and tapestries
with velvet-clad characters in interiors, out of which he
makes good color effects. Bonvin (181 7-1 8S7) and Mettling
have painted the interior with small figures, copper-kettles,
and other still-life that have given brilliancy to their pict-
ures. As a still-life painter Vollon ( 1 833-) has never had
a superior. His fruits, flowers, armors, even his small ma-
rines and harbor pieces, are painted with one of the surest
brushes of this century. He is called the " painter's
painter," and is a man of great force in handling color,
and in large realistic effect. Dantan and Friant have both
produced canvases showing figures in interiors.
A number of excellent genre painters have been claimed
by the impressionists as belonging to their brotherhood.
There is little to warrant the claim, except the adoption to
some extent of the modern ideas of illumination and flat
painting. Dagnan-Bouveret (1S52-) is one of these men, a
good draughtsman, and a finished clean painter who by his re-
cent use of high color finds himself occasionally looked upon
as an impressionist. As a matter of fact he is one of the
most conservative of the moderns — a man of feeling and
imagination, and a fine technician. Fantin-Latour (1836-) is
half romantic, half allegorical in subject, and in treatment
oftentimes designedly vague and shadowy, more suggestive
than realistic. Duez (1S43-) and Gervex (i 848-) are perhaps
nearer to impressionism in their works than the others, but
they are not at all advance advocates of this latest phase of
art. In addition there are Cottet and Henri Martin.
THE IMPEESSIONISTS : The name is a misnomer. Every
painter is an impressionist in so far as he records his im-
pressions, and all art is impressionistic. What Manet (1833-
1883), the leader of the original movement, meant to say was
FRKNCII rAINTINH.
169
that naturi.' sliouUl not be paiiitrti as it actually is, hut as it
"impresses" the painter. He anil his few loilowers tried
to ehanj^e the name to Independenls, Inil the orij^inal
name lias ihni:.^ to them and been mistakenly fastened to a
present band of huulseape painters who are seckinj; eHeets
o( light and air aiul slioukl be ealled luminists if it is
neeessar\- for them to be named at all. Manet was
extravagant in method and disposed toward low life for a
subjeet, wliieli has always militiited against his popularity ;
l-tG. 63. — MtilSSONIER. X.Vf'OIKi'N I\ I0I4
but he was a very important man for his technical dis-
coveries regarding the relations of light and shadow, the flat
appearance of nature, the exact value of color tones. Some
of his works, like The Boy with a Sword and The Toreador
xyo HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Dead, are excellent pieces of painting. The higher imag-
inative qualities of art Manet made no great effort at
attaining.
Degas stands quite by himself, strong in effects of mo-
lion, especially with race-horses, fine in color, and a delight-
ful brushman in such subjects as ballet-girls and scenes
from the theatre. Besnard is one of the best of the present
men. He deals with the figure, and is usually concerned
with the problem of harmonizing color under conflicting
lights, such as twilight and lamplight. E6raud and Raifaelli
are exceedingly clever in street scenes and character pieces ;
Pissarro* handles the peasantry in high color; Brown (1829-
1890), the race-horse, and Renoir, the middle class of social
life. Caillebotte, Roll, Forain, and Miss Cassatt, an Ameri-
can, are also classed with the impressionists.
IMPRESSIONIST LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: Of recent years
there has been a disposition to change the key of light in
landscape painting, to get nearer the truth of nature in the
height of light and in the height of shadows. In doing this
Claude Monet, the present leader of the movement, has done
away with the dark brown or black shadow and substituted
the light-colored shadow, which is nearer the actual truth
of nature. In trying to raise the pitch of light he has not
been quite so successful, though accomplishing something.
His method is to use pure prismatic colors on the principle
that color is light in a decomposed form, and that its proper
juxtaposition on canvas will recompose into pure light again.
Hence the use of light shadows and bright colors. The aim
of these modern men is chiefly to gain the effect of light
and air. They do not apparently care for subject, detail, or
composition.
At present their work is in the experimental stage, but
from the way in which it is being accepted and followed by
the painters of to-day we may be sure the movement is of
considerable importance. There will probably be a reac-
* Died, 1Q03.
FRENCH I'AINTINO. I?'
tiiiii in f,i\()r of inoix rdini ;uiil solidity than the present
men ,L;i\"e, but the hiijh ke\' n( hj^Hit will he retained. There
are so many painters followiiii;' these modern methods, not
oid\- in l''ranie but all over the world, that a list of their
names would be impossible. In I'Vance Sisley with Monet
are the two important landseapists. In marbles Boudin
and Montenard shoidd be mentioned.
PRINCIPAL WORKS: The modern French painters are seen to ad-
\.inUii^c in tlie L'Hivic, Luxembourg, I'antheon, St-nhonne, and tlie munic-
ipal galleries of France. Also Metropolitan Museum New \'ork, Chicago
.\n Institute, Boston Museum, and many private collections in France and
America. Cr)nsu]l for works in pulilic <»r private hands, Chaniplin and
I'crkins. (Vi /(•/ii/;i; oj Vainten and J'ainiin^s, under names of artists.
CHAPTER XV.
SPANISH PAINTING.
Books Recommended : Bermudez, Diicionaiio de las
Bellas Aries en Espafia ; Davillier, Aleinoire de Velasquez ;
Davillier, Fortuny ; Eusebi, Los Dijfereiites Eseuelas de
Piutura ; Ford, Handbook of Spain ; Head, History of
Spanisli and French Schools of Fainting ; Justi, Velasgiiez and
his Times ; Lefort, Velasquez ; Lefort, Francisco Goya ;
Lefort, Murillo et son Fcole ; Lefort, La Feinti/re Fspagnole ;
Palomino de Castro y Velasco, J^idas de los Pintores y Esta-
tiiarios Eniinentes Espaiioles ; Passavant, Die CJiristlicIie Kiinst
in Spanien ; Plon, Les Maitres Ltaliens an Service de la Maison
d^ Antriche ; Stevenson, Velasqne-z; Stirling, Annals of the
Artists of Spain ; Stirling, I'elasqiicz and his Works; Tubino,
El Arte y los Artistas coiiteinpordneos en la Peninsula ;
Tubino, Murillo ; Viardot, Notices sur les Frincipaux Feintres
de r Espagne ; Yriarte, Goya, sa Biographic, etc.
SPANISH ART MOTIVES: \\'hat ma)' have been the early
art of Spain we are at a loss to conjecture. The reigns of
the Moor, the Iconoclast, and, finally, the Inquisitor, have
left little that dates before the fourteenth century. The
miniatures and sacred relics treasured in the churches and
said to be of the apostolic period, show the traces of a much
later date and a foreign origin. Even when we come down
to the fifteenth century and meet with art produced in
Spain, we have a following of Italy or the Netherlands. In
methods and technic it was derivative more than original,
though almost from the beginning peculiarly Spanish in
spirit.
That spirit was a dark and savage one, a something that
Sl'ANISlI rAINTlNC.
173
n'iii,m.'ir uiuU'i' tlu' lasli of llu' (.'liui'c h, lidWfil hcfmi- the
liU|UisUnin, ,uui pl.iwd tlu' t'\ci'iili(inri- with llic ii.iiiit-
l>rusli. 'I'hc liulk ol Spanish >ii"l was C'luirrli aii, doui.' uiulcr
, \K \ Kl r.F-M A.
ecclesiastical ilomination, aiul done m tonii without ques-
tion or protest. 'I'lie reliiiious subject nileil. True enough,
there was portraiture of nobility, antl under Philip and
Velasque/ a half-monarchical art of military scenes and
i;iyir<- : but this was not the bent of Spanish painting' as a
whole. Even in late davs, when N'elasquez was rellecting
the haughty court, Munllo was more widel)' and nationally
174 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
reflecting the believing provinces and the Church faith of
the people. It is safe to say, in a general way, that the
Church was responsible for Spanish art, and that religion
was its chief motive.
There was no revived antique, little of the nude or the
pagan, little of consequence in landscape, little, until Velas-
quez's time, of the real and the actual. An ascetic view
of life, faith, and the hereafter prevailed. The pietistic,
the fervent, and the devout were not so conspicuous as the
morose, the ghastly, and the horrible. The saints and
martyrs, the crucifixions and violent deaths, were eloquent
of the torture-chamber. It was more ecclesiasticism by
blood and violence than Christianity by peace and love.
And Spain welcomed this. For of all the children of the
Church she was the most faithful to rule, crushing out
heresy with an iron hand, gaining strength from the
Catholic reaction, and upholding the Jesuits and the
Inquisition.
METHODS OF PAINTING : Spanish art worthy of mention
did not appear until the fifteenth century. At that time
Spain was in close relations with the Netherlands, and
Flemish painting was somewhat followed. How much the
methods of the Van Eycks influenced Spain would be hard
to determine, especially as these Northern methods were
mixed with influences coming from Italy. Finally, the
Italian example prevailed by reason of Spanish students in
Italy and Italian painters in Spain. Florentine line, ^'ene-
tian color, and Neapolitan light-and-shade ruled almost
everywhere, and it was not until the time of Velasquez —
the period just before the eighteenth-century decline — that
distinctly Spanish methods, founded on nature, really came
forcibly to the front.
SPANISH SCHOOLS OF PAINTING: There is difficulty in clas-
sifying these schools of painting because our present knowl-
edge of them is limited. Isolated somewhat from the rest
SrANISII TAINTINd.
175
of Europe, the Spanish painters liave never been critically
studied as the Italians have been, and what is at present
knt)\vii about the schools must be accepteil sui)ject to criti-
cal revision hereafter.
The earliest school seems to have been made up from a
gathering- of artists at Toledo, who limned, carved, and
gilded ni the cathedral ; but this school was not of long
duration. It was merged into the Castilian school, which,
after the building of Madriil, made its home in that capital
and drew its forces from the towns of 'J'oledo, Vallad(jlid,
FIG. 70. — ML'RILLO. ST. ANTHONY' OF f.\DU.\. r.ERLlN.
and Badajoz. The Andalusian school, which rose about
the middle of the sixteenth century, was made up from
the local schools of Seville, Cordova, and Granada. The
176 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
V^alencian school, to the southeast, rose about the same
time, and was finally merged into the Andalusian. '1 he
Aragonese school, to the east, was small and of no great
consequence, though existing in a feeble way to the end of
the seventeenth century. The painters of these schools
are not very strongly marked apart by methods or school
traditions, and perhaps the divisions would better be looked
upon as more geographical than otherwise. None of the
schools really began before the sixteenth century, though
there are names of artists and some extant pictures before
that date, and with the seventeenth century all art in Spain
seems to have centred about Madrid.
Spanish painting started into life concurrently with the
rise to prominence of Spain as a political kingdom. What,
if any, direct effect the maritime discoveries, the conquests
of Granada and Naples, the growth of literature, and the
decline of Italy, may have had upon Spanish painting can
only be conjectured ; but certainly the sudden advance of
the nation politically and socially was paralleled by the
advance of its art.
THE CASTILIAN SCHOOL: This school probably had no so-
calleil founder. It was a growth from early art traditions
at Toledo, and afterward became the chief school of the
kingdom owing to the patronage of Philip 11. and Philip
IV. at Madrid. The first painter of importance in the
school seems to have been Antonio Rincon (1446 ?-i5oo ?).
He is sometimes spoken of as the father of Spanish paint-
ing, and as having studied in Italy with Castagno and
Ghirlandajo, but there is little foundation for either state-
ment. He painted chiefly at Toledo, painted portraits of
Ferdinand and Isabella, and had some skill in hard draw-
ing. Berruguete (i48o?-i56i) studied with Michael An-
gelo, and is supposed to have helped him in the Vatican.
He afterward returned to Spain, painted many altar-pieces,
and was patronized as painter, sculptor, and architect by
SPANISH TAINTING. ^11
Charles V. and Philip II. He was probably the first to
introduce pure Italian methods into Spain, with some cold-
ness and dryness of coloring and handling. Becerra
( I 5 JO ^- I 570) was horn in Antlalusia, but worked in Castile,
and was a man of Italian training similar to Berruguete.
He was an excc[ilional man, perhaps, in his use of mytho-
logical themes and nude figures.
I'here is not a great deal known about Morales (1509?-
15S6), called " the Divine," except that he was allied to the
Castilian school, and painted devotional heads of Christ
with the crown of thorns, and many afflicted and weeping
madonnas. There was Florentine drawing in his work,
great regard for finish, and something of Correggio's soft-
ness in shadows pitched in a browner key. His sentiment
was rather exaggerated. Sanchez-Coello (1513?-! 590) was
painter and courtier to Philip II., and achieved reputation
as a portrait-painter, though also doing some altar-pieces.
It is doubtful whether he ever studied in Italy, but in
Spain he was for a time with Antonio Moro, and probably
learned from him something of rich costumes, ermines, em-
broideries, and jewels, for which his portraits were remark-
able. Navarette (1526 ?-i579), called "El Mudo " (the
dumb one), certainly was in Italy for something like twenty
years, and was there a disciple of Titian, from whom he
doubtless learned much of color and the free flow of dra-
peries. He was one of the best of the middle-period paint-
ers. Theotocopuli (1548 ?-i625), called "El Greco" (the
Greek), was another Venetian - influenced painter, with
enough Spanish originality about him to make most of his
pictures striking in color and drawing. Tristan (1586-1640)
was his best follower.
Velasquez (1599-1660) is the greatest name in the history
of Spanish painting. With him Spanish art took upon itself
a decidedly naturalistic and national stamp. Before his
time Italy had been freely imitated ; but though Velasquez
12
178
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
himself was in Italy for quite a long time, and intimately
acquainted with great Italian art, he never seemed to have
been led away from his own individual way of seeing and
doing. He was a pupil of Herrera, afterward with Pacheco,
and learned much from Ribera and Tristan, but more from
a direct study of nature than from all the others. He was in
sr. AGNES, DRESDEN.
a broad sense a realist — a man who recorded the material
and the actual without emendation or transposition. He
has never been surpassed in giving the solidity and sub-
stance of form and the placing of objects in atmosphere.
And this, not in a small, finical way, but with a breadth
and a nobility of treatment which are to-day the despair of
painters. There was nothing of the ethereal, the spiritual,
SPANISH I'AINTINC, 179
the pietistic, or the patlietic aln)ut liiiii. He never for a
moment left the hrni basis of reality. Standing upon earth
he recorilcd the truths of the earth, l)Lit in their largest,
fullest, most unix'ersal forms.
'rechnieally his was a master-hand, doing all things with
ease, giving exaet relations of eolors and lights, and plaeing
everything so [lerfeetly that no addition or alteration is
thought of. With the brush he was liglit, easy, sure. The
surfaee looks as though touehed onee, no more. It is
the perfeetion of handling through its simplicity and cer-
tainty, and has not the slightest trace of affectation or
mannerism. He was one of the few Spanish painters who
were enabled to shake off the yoke of the Church. Yew of
his canvases are religious in subject. Under royal patron-
age he passed almost all of his life in painting portraits of
the royal family, ministers of state, and great dignitaries.
.\s a portrait-painter he is more widely known than as a
figure-painter. Nevertheless he did many canvases like The
Tapestry \Veavers and The Surrender at Breda, which attest
his remarkable genius in that field ; and even in landscape,
in xv/uY, in animal painting, he was a very superior man.
In fact Velasquez is one of the few great painters in Euro-
pean history for whom there is nothing but praise. He was
the full-rounded complete painter, intensely individual and
self-assertive, and yet in his art recording in a broad way
the Spanish type and life. He was the climax of Spanish
painting, and after him there was a rather swift decline, as
had been the case in the Italian schools.
Mazo (i 6 10?- 1 667), pupil and son-in-law of Velasquez, was
one of his most facile imitators, and Carreno de Miranda
(16 I 4-1 685) was influenced by Velasquez, and for a time
his assistant. The Castilian school may be said to have
closed with these late men and with Claudio Coello (1635 ?-
1693), a painter with a style founded on Titian and Rubens,
whose best work v/as of extraordinary power. Spanish
I So HISTORY OF PAINTING.
painting went out with Spanish power, and only isolated
men of small rank remained.
ANDALUSIAN SCHOOL: This school came into existence
about the middle of the sixteenth century. Its chief centre
was at Seville, and its chief patron the Church rather than
the king. Vargas (1502-156S) was probably the real
founder of the school, though De Castro (fl. 1454) and others
preceded him. Vargas was a man of much reputation and
ability in his time, and introduced Italian methods and ele-
gance into the Andalusian school after twenty odd years of
residence in Italy. He is said to have studied under Perino
del Vaga, and there is some sweetness of face and grace of
form about his work that point that way, though his com-
position suggests Correggio. Most of his frescos have
perished ; some of his canvases are still in existence.
Cespedes (1538 ?-i6o8) is little known through extant works,
but he achieved fame in many departments during his life,
and is said to have been in Italy under Florentine influ-
ence. His coloring was rather cold, and his drawing large
and flat. The best early painter of the school was Roelas
(1558 ?-i625), the inspirer of Murillo and the master of
Zurbaran. He is supposed to have studied at Venice, be-
cause of his rich, glowing color. Most of his works are
religious and are found chiefly at Seville. He was greatly
patronized by the Jesuits. Pacheco (1571-1654) was more
of a pedant than a painter, a man of rule, who to-day might
be written down an academician. His work was dry, and
perhaps the best reason for his being remembered is that
he was one of the masters and the father-in-law of Velas-
quez. His rival, Herrera the Elder (i576?-i656) was a
stronger man — in fact, the most original artist of his school.
He struck off by himself and created a bold realism with a
broad brush that anticipated Velasquez — in fact, Velasquez
was under him fot a time.
The pure Spanish school in Andalusia, as distinct from
SPANISH PAINTING.
18I
Italian imitation, may he said U> have slarleil with Ucrrcra.
It was furtluT ailvaiucil by anotlicr independent painter,
Ziirbaran ( isyS-idOj), a pupil of Roelas, He was a painter
Fin. 72. — FORTUNV. SPANISH MARRIAGE.
of the emaciated monk in ecstasy, and many other rather
dismal religious subjects expressive of tortured rapture.
From using a rather dark shadow he acquired the name of
the Spanish Caravaggio. He had a good deal of Caravag-
gio's strength, together with a depth and breadth of color
suggestive of the Venetians. Cano (1601-1667), though he
never was in Italy, had the name of the Spanish Michael
,\ngelo, probably because he was sculptor, painter, and ar-
chitect. His painting was rather sharp in line and statu-
esque in pose, with a coloring somewhat like that of Van
Dyck. It was eclectic rather than original work.
Murillo (1618-1682) is generally placed at the head of the
Andalusian school, as Velasquez at the head of the Castilian.
There is good reason for it, for though Murillo was not
the great painter he was sometime supposed, yet he was
182 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
not the weak man his modern critics would make him out.
A religious painter largely, though doing some genre sub-
jects like his beggar-boy groups, he sought for religious
fervor and found, only too often, sentimentality. His
madonnas are usually after the Carlo Dolci pattern, though
never so excessive in sentiment. This was not the case
with his earlier works, mostly of humble life, which were
painted in rather a hard, positive manner. Later on he
became misty, veiled in light and effeminate in outline,
though still holding grace. His color varied with his early
and later styles. It was usually gay and a little thin. While
basing his work on nature like Velasquez, he never had the
supreme poise of that master, either mentally or technically ;
howbeit he was an excellent painter, who perhaps justly
holds second place in Spanish art.
SCHOOL or VALENCIA: This school rose contemporary with
tiie Andalusian school, into which it was finally merged
after the importance of Madrid had been established. It
was largely modelled upon Italian painting, as indeed were
all the schools of Spain at the start. Juan de Joanes
(1523 P-I579) apparently was its founder, a man who painted
a good portrait, but in other respects was only a fair imita-
tor of Raphael, whom he had studied at Rome. A stronger
man was Francisco de Ribalta (1550 ?-i628), who was for a
tiuie in Italy under the Caracci, and learned from them
free draughtsmanship and elaborate composition. He was
also fond of Sebastiano del Piombo, and in his best works
(at Valencia) reflected him. Ribalta gave an earlv training
to Ribera (1588-1656), who was the most important man of
this school. In reality Ribera was more Italian than Va-
lencian, for he spent the greater part of his life in Italy,
where he was called Lo Spagnoletto, and was greatly influ-
enced by Caravaggio. He was a Spaniard in the horrible
subjects that he chose, but in coarse strength of line, heavi-
ness of shadows, harsh handling of the brush, he was a true
SPANISH rAINTINO, I S3
Ncapdlilaii I)arkliii;4". A [iruiiomicecl maniU'i'ist he was im
li'ss a mail of strcnt;'lh, and even in his shaiUivv-salui'ated
culors a painler with the eohir instiiu:l. In lUily iiis inllu-
eiue in ihe lime of the Deeailenee was wide-spreail, and in
:5pam his llahaii pnpil, (iiordano, introdueed his methods for
kite imitation. There were no other men of mueh rani< in
the ^'aleneian sehool, ami, as has been saiti, the sehool was
eventnallv merged in Andahisian paintin<;.
EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN
SPAIN : Ahiiost direetly after the passing of Veiastiuez and
.Murillo Spanish art failed. The eighteenth-century, as in
Italy, was quite barren of any considerable art until near its
close. Then Goya (1746-iSjS) seems to have made a partial
restoration of painting. He was a man of peculiarly Spanish
turn of mind, fond of the brutal and the bloody, picturing
inquisition scenes, bull-fights, battle pieces, and revelling in
caricature, sarcasm, and ridicule. His imagination was gro-
tesciue and horrible, but as a painter his art was based on
the natural, and was exceedingly strong. In brush-work he
followed A'elasquez ; in a peculiar forcing of contrasts in
light and dark he was apparently quite himself, though pos-
sibly influenced by Ribera's work. His best work shows in
his portraits and etchings.
After Ctoya's death Spanish art, such as it was, rather
followed France, with the extravagant classicism of David as
a model. What was produced may be seen to this day in
the Madrid Museum. It does not call for mention here.
About the beginning of the i86o's Spanish painting made
a new advance with Mariano Fortuny (1S38-1874). In his
early years he worked at historical painting, but later on he
went to Algiers and Rome, finding his true vent in a bright
sparkling painting of ^<';/;r subjects, oriental scenes, streets,
interiors, single figures, and the like. He excelled in color,
sunlight effects, and particularly in a vivacious facile hand-
ling of the brush. His work is brilliant, and in his late pro-
1 84
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
ductions often spotty from excessive use of points of light
in higli color. He was a technician of much brilliancy and
originality, his work exciting great admiration in his day,
and leading the younger painters of Spain into that ornate
handling visible in their works at the present time. Many
of these latter, from association with art and artists in Paris,
have adopted French methods, and hardly show such a
thing as Spanish nationality. Fortuny's brother-in-law,
Madrazo (1841-), is an
example of a Spanish
painter turned F'rench
in his methods — a facile
and brilliant portrait -
painter. Zamacois
(i S42-1 87 I) died early,
but with a reputation as
a successful portrayer
of seventeenth-century
subjects a little after
the style of Meissonier
and not unlike Gerome.
He was a good colorist
and an excellent painter
of textures.
The historical scene
of Mediseval or Renais-
sance times, pageants
and fetes with rich cos-
tume, fine architecture
and vivid effects of col-
or, are characteristic of
a number of the modern
Spaniards — Villegas, Pradilla, Alvarez. As a general thing
their canvases are a little flashy, likely to please at first
sight but grow wearisome after a time. PalmaroU has a
FIG. 73. — MADI^AZn
LiNMASKF-U.
STANISH rAINTINC. '■ 185
sl\lc Ihnt rcsrmlilcs a inixturr of l'"orluny and Meissonicr ;
aiul some otluT p.iinUTs, like Luis Jiminez Aranda, SoroUa,
Zuloaga, Roman Ribera, ami Domingo, have done creditable
work. In landsi ajie and Venetian scenes Rico leads among the
Spaniards \\ilh a vivacity and hrij;htncss not always seen
to oood advantai;c ni his late canvases.
PRINCIPAL WORKS ; C.LiuTally s|icakinj;, Spanish art cannot be seen
C' ailvaiuai;c outside of Spain, liolli ils ancient anil modern maslerpieccs
aie at Mailiiil, Seville, Toleilo, and elsewhere. The Koyal Gallery at
Madrid lias llie most and llie liest c.vamples.
C.vsiii.l \N SctiooL — Rincon, altar-piece cluireh of Roljleda de
(.'liaviUa ; Berruguete, altar-pieces Sarayossa, Valladolid, Madrid, Toledo ;
Morales, Madiiil and I.ouvre ; Sanchez-Coello, Madrid and Brussels
Mus. ; Navarette, Escmial, Madrid, St. Petersburg; Theotocopuli,
Cathedral and S. Tome Toledo, Madrid Mus.; Velasquez, liest works in
Madrid Mus. , Kscorial, Salamanca, Montpensier Gals., Nat. Gal. Ton.,
Infanta Marguerita Louvre, liorro portrait (?) Berlin, Innocent X. Doria
Rome ; Mazo, landscapes Madrid Mus. ; Carreno de Miranda, Madrid
Mus.; Claudio Coello, I'scorial, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin, and Munich Mus.
Andai.hsian Scnooi, — Vargas, Seville Cathedral ; Cespedes, Cordo-
va Cathedral ; Roelas, S. Isidoro Cathedral, Museum Seville ; Pacheco,
M.adrid Mus.; Herrera, Seville Cathedral and Mus. .and Archbishop's
I'al.ree, Dresden Mus.; Zurbaran, Seville Cathedral and Mus. Madrid,
Dresden, I.ouvre, Nat. Gal. Lou.; Cano, Madrid, Seville Mus. and Ca-
thedral, Berlin, Dresden, Munich ; Murillo, best pictures in Madrid Mus.
and .\ead. of S. I'ernando Mailrid, Se\'ille Mus. Hospital and Caiaichin
Chuieh, Lou\i"e, Nat. Gal. Lou., Dresden, Munich, Hermitage.
X'alencian Sciioi>i. — Juan de Joanes, Madrid Mus., Cathedral Va-
lencia, Hermitage ; Ribalta, Madrid and Valencian Mus., Heriuitage ;
Ribera, I.ouvre, Nat. Gal. Loii., Dresden, Naples, Hermitage, and other
Kuiopeau museums, chief works at Madiid.
MiiDEKN Men and Tiieiu Works — Goya, Madrid Mus., Acad, of S.
Fernando, Valencian Cathedral ami Mus., two portraits in Louvre. The
works of the contemporary painters are largely in private hands where
leferenee to them is of little use to the average student. Thirty Fortunys
are in the collection of William H. Stewart in Paris. His best work. The
Spanish Marriage, belongs to Madame de Cassin, in Paris. Examples of
Villegas, Madrazo, Rico, Domingo, and others, in the Vanderbilt Gallery,
Metropolitan Mus., New ^^ork; Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia Mus.
CHAPTER XVI.
FLEMISH PAINTING.
Books Recommended : Busscher, RcchcrcJus sur Ics Pcin-
trcs Gantois ; Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Early Flemish Paint-
ers ; Cust, Van Dyek ; Dehaisnes, L'Art dans la Flandre ;
Du Jardiii, L'art Flamand ; Eisenmann,^ The Brothers Van
Fvck ; Fetis, Les Artistes Beiges a P Stranger ; Fromentin,
Old Masters of Belgium and Holland ; Gerrits, Rubens zyn
Tyd, ete. ; Guiffrey, Van Dyek; Hasselt, Histoi7-e de Rubens ;
(Waagen's) Kiigler, Handbook of Painting — German, Flemish,
and Duteh Schools ; Lemonnier, Histoire des Arts en Bel-
gique : Mantz,^ Adrien Broiiwer ; Michel, Rubens ; Michiels,
Rubens en I' Ecole d' Ativers ; Michiels, Histoire de la Peinture
Flamande ; Stevenson, Rubens ; Van den Branden, Geschiedenis
der Antwerpsche Schilderschool ; Van Mander, Le Livre des
Peintres ; VfsLd^gtn, Uber Hubert und Jan Van E\ck ; Waagen,
Peter Paul Rubens ; Wauters, Rogier van der IVevden ; Wau-
ters. La Peinture Flamande ; Weale, Hans Memling (^Arundel
Soci) ; Weale, Notes sur Jean 'Van Eyck.
THE FLEMISH PEOPLE: Individually and nationally the
Flemings were strugglers against adverse circumstances
from the beginning. A realistic race with practical ideas,
a people rather warm of impulse and free in habits, they
combined some German sentiment with French liveliness
and gayety. The solidarity of the nation was not accom-
plished until after i 385, when the Dukes of Burgundy began
to extend their power over the Low Countries. Then the
Flemish people became strong enough to defy both Ger-
many and France, and wealthy enough, through their com-
FLEMISH TAINTING.
187
nierce witli Spain, Italy, and France to encourage art not
only at the IHical court but in the churches, and among tlie
citizens of the various
towns.
FLEMISH SUBJECTS AND
METHODS: As in all the
countries of ]^uro|ie, the
early Flemish painting-
pictured Christian sub-
jects primarily. The
great bulk of it was
church altar-pieces,
though side by side with
this was an admirable
portraiture, some knowl-
edge of landscape, and
some exposition of alle-
gorical subjects. In
means and methods it
was quite original. The
early history is lost, but
if Flemish painting was
beholden to the painting
of any other nation, it was
to the miniature paint-
ing of France. There is,
however, no positive rec-
ord of this. The Flem-
ings seem to have begun
by themselves, and pict-
ured the life about them
in their own way. They
were apparently not in-
fluenced at first by Italy. There were no antique influences,
no excavated marbles to copy, no Byzantine traditions left
AN E^'CK^. ST. ll.WON A I.T,\ R-i'l ECE
(wing). L'.ERLIN.
1 88 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
to follow. At first their art was exact and minute in detail,
but not well grasped in the mass. The compositions were
huddled, the landscapes pure but finical, the figures inclined
to slimness, awkwardness, and angularity in the lines of form
or drapery, and uncertain in action. To offset this there was
a positive realism in textures, perspective, color, tone, light,
and atmosphere. The effect of the whole was odd and
strained, but the effect of the part was to convince one that
the Flemish painters were excellent craftsmen in detail,
skilled with the brush, and shrewd observers of nature in
a purely picturesque way.
To the Flemish painters of the fifteenth century belongs,
not the invention of oil-painting, for it was known before
their time, but its acceptable application in picture-making.
They applied oil with color to produce brilliancy and
warmth of effect, to insure firmness and body in the work,
and to carry out textural effects in stuffs, marbles, metals,
and the like. So far as we know there never was much use
of distemper, or fresco-work upon the walls of buildings.
The oil medium came into vogue when the miniatures and
illuminations of the early days had expanded into panel
pictures. The size of the miniature was increased, but the
minute method of finishing was not laid aside. Some time
afterward painting with oil upon canvas was adopted.
SCHOOL OF BRUGES ; Painting in Flanders starts abruptly
with the fifteenth century. What there was before that
time more than miniatures and illuminations is not known.
Time and the Iconoclasts have left no remains of conse-
quence. Flemish art for us begins with Hubert van Eyck
('-1426) and his younger brother Jan van Eyck (?-i44o).
The elder brother is supposed to have been the better
painter, because the most celebrated work of the brothers^
the St. Bavon altar-piece, parts of which are in Ghent, Brus-
sels, and Berlin — bears the inscription that Hubert began it
and Jan finished it. Hubert was no doubt an excellent
I'MsMISir I'AINTTNC.
189
painter, but his pictures are few and tiiere is much discussion
whether he or Jan painted them. For historical purposes
Flemisli art was hc^uii, anil almost ci)ni[)lctcd, by |an van
Eyck. He IkuI all the attributes (jf the carlv men, and was
one ol the most perfect of I'leniish painters. Me painted real
forms and real Hie, j^ave them a settin;;" in true perspective
and light, and jiut in backj^roLuul landscapes with a truthful
it minute regard for the facts. His figures in action had
some awkwardness, they were small of head, slim of body,
and sometimes stumbled ; but his modelling of faces, his
rendering of te.xtures in cloth, metal,
stone, and the like, his delicate yet firm
fditiiri were all rather remarkable for his
time. None of this early Flemish art has
the grandeur of Italian composition, but
in realistic detail, in landscape, architect-
ure, figure, and dress, in pathos, sincer-
ity, and sentiment it is unsurpassed Ijy
any fifteenth-century art.
Little is known of the personal history
of either of the ^'an l^'.ycks. 'f'hey left an
influence and had many followers, but
whether these were direct pupils or not
is an open cjuestion. Peter Cristus (1400 ?-
1472) was perhaps a pupil of Jan, though
more likely a follower of his methods in
color and general technic. Roger van der
Weyden (i4oo?-i464), whether a pupil of
the Van Eycks or a rival, produced a simi-
lar style of art. His first master was an ob-
scure Robert Campin. He was afterward
at Bruges, and from there went to Brussels
and founded a school of his own called the
SCHOOL OF BEABANT : He was more emotional and dra-
matic than Jan van Eyck, giving much excited action and
MG. 75. — MEMLING (?).
SI . I AWREN'CE (dE-
T.^IL). NAT. gal. LON-
DON.
19° HISTORY OF PAINTING.
pathetic expression to his figures in scenes from the passion
of Christ. He had not Van Eyck's skill, nor his detail, nor
his color. More of a draughtsman than a colorist, he was
angular in figure and drapery, but had honesty, pathos, and
sincerity, and was very charming in bright background
landscapes. Though spending some time in Italy, he was
never influenced by Italian art. He was always Flemish in
type, subject, and method, a trifle repulsive at first through
angularity and emotional exaggeration, but a man to be
studied.
By Van der Goes (i430?-i482) there are but few good ex-
amples, the chief one being an altarpiece in the Uffizi at
Florence. It is angular in drawing but full of character, and
in beauty of detail and ornamentation is a remarkable picture.
He probably followed Van der Weyden, as did also Justus van
Ghent (last half of fifteenth century). Contemporary with
these men Dierick Bouts (1410-1475) established a school at
Haarlem. He was Dutch by birth, but after 1450 settled in
Louvain, and in his art belongs to the Flemish school. He
was influenced by Van der Weyden, and shows it in his detail
of hands and melancholy face, though he differed from him in
dramatic action and in type. His figure was awkward, his
color warm and rich, and in landscape backgrounds he greatly
advanced the painting of the time.
Memling' (1425 ?-i495?), one of the greatest of the school,
is another man about whose life little is known. He was
probably associated with Van der Weyden in some way.
His art is founded on the Van Eyck school, and is remark-
able for sincerity, purity, and frankness of attitude. As a
religious painter, he was perhaps beyond all his contempo-
raries in tenderness and pathos. In portraiture he was ex-
ceedingly strong in characterization, and in his figures very
graceful. His flesh painting was excellent, but in textures
or landscape work he was not remarkable. His best fol-
lowers were Van der Meire (1427 ?-i 474 ?) and Gheeraert
FI.r.MISII PAINTINC;.
19'
FlC. 76.-
David ( 1450 ?- 1 5 J ,;). 'I'hc l;ilUr was fainoiis for the nnc,
bnuul lainlsoa|)cs in tlic hackj^rnuiuls nt' his pictures, said,
hnwcvrr, li\' critirs to liavc jiccii paiiiled 1)\' Idachiiii I'ati-
nir. He was rcalistiialU' luiri'ihlr in
nuuw snhjocls, anil tli(iu,L;"li a close
recorder of detail he was nuich broad-
er than an\' of his predecessors.
FLEMISH SCHOOLS OF THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY: In this century Flemish
painting- became rather widely dif-
fused. The schools of Hrug'cs and
(Ihent gave place to the schools in
the large coniniercial cities like Ant-
werp and Brussels, and the commer-
cial relations Ijetween the Low Coun-
tries and Italy iinally led to the dis-
sipatiiur of national characteristics in art and the imitation
of the Italian Renaissance painters. There is no sharp
hue of demarcation between those painters who clung to
Flemish methods and those who adopted Italian methods.
The change was gradual.
Quentin Massys (1460 ?-iS3o) and Mostert (1474-1556 ?), a
Dutchman by birth, but, like Bouts, Flemish by influence,
Were among the last of the Gothic painters in Flanders, and
yet they began the introduction of Italian features in their
painting. Massys led in architectural backgrounds, and
from that the Italian example spread to subjects, figures,
methods, until the indigenous Flemish art became a thing of
the past. Massys was, at Antwerp, the most important
painter of his day, following the (.)ld Flemish methods with
many improvements. His work was detailed, and yet ex-
ecuted with a broader, freer brush than formerly, and with
more variety in color, modelling, expression of character.
He increased figures to almost life-size, giving them greater
importance than landscape or architecture. The type was
192 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Still lean and angular, and often contorted with emotion.
His Money-Changers and Misers (many of them painted by
his son) were a genre of his own. A\'ith him closed the
Gothic school, and with him began the
ANTWERP SCHOOL, the pupils of which went to Italy, and
eventually became Italianized. Mabuse (1470 ?-i54i) was
the first to go. His early work shows the influence of
Massys and David. He was good in composition, color,
and brush-work, but lacked in originality, as did all the
imitators of Italy. Franz Floris (i5i8?-i57o) was a man
of talent, much admired in his time, because he brought
back reminiscences of Michael Angelo to Antwerp. His
influence was fatal upon his followers, of whom there were
many, like the Franckens and De Vos. Italy and Roman
methods, models, architecture, subjects, began to rule
everywhere.
From Brussels Barent van Orley (1491 ?-i542) left early
for Italy, and became essentially Italian, though retaining
some Flemish color. He painted in oil, tempera, and for
glass, and is supposed to have gained his brilliant colors by
using a gilt ground. His early works remind one of David.
Cocxie (1499-1592), the Flemish Raphael, was but an indif-
ferent imitator of the Italian Raphael. At Liege the Ro-
manists, so called, began with Lambert Lombard (1505-1566),
of whose work nothing authentic remains except drawings.
At Bruges Peeter Pourbus (1510 ?-is84) was about the last
one of the good portrait-painters of the time. Another ex-
cellent portrait-painter, a pupil of Scorel, was Antonio Moro
(1512 ?-i578 ?). He had much dignity, force, and elaborate-
ness of costume, and stood quite by himself. There were
other painters of the time who were born or trained in
Flanders, and yet became so naturalized in other countries
that in their work they do not belong to Flanders. Neu-
chatel(i527 ?-i59o?), GeIdorp(i553-i6i6?), Calvaert (1540?-
1619), Spranger (1546-1627 ?), and others, were of this group.
FLEMISH rAlNTlNG.
193
Anionj; all the struiii;lcrs in Italian iniilation only a few
landscapisls lickl out for the Klcniish view. Paul Bril
(1554-1626) was the best of them. Me went to Italy, but
instead o( following' the methods taught there, he taught
Italians his own view of landscape. I lis work was a little
dr\' and fi.irmal, but graceful in composition, and good in
light and color. 'Ihe Brueghels — there were three of them
— also stood out for Flemish landscape, introducing it
nominally as a background for small figures, but in reality
for the beauty of the landscape itself.
SEVENTEENTH - CENTURY PAINTING: 'I'his was the great
ceiUur\' of I'demish
painting, though the
painting was not
entirely Flemish in
method or thought.
The influence of It-
aly had done away
with the early sim-
plicity, purity, and
religious pathos of
the Van Eycks.
During the six-
teenth century ev-
erything had run to
liald imitation of
Renaissance meth-
ods. Then came a
new master-genius,
Rubens (157 7-1 640),
who formed a new
art founded in
method upon Italy,
yet distinctly northern in character. Rubens chose all sub-
jects for his brush, but the religious altar-piece probably
13
LCE.NS. PORTR.MT OF ^'OU^'G WOMAN. )HEK-
rillTAGE, ST. I'E'l EKSBL'RGH.
194 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
occupied him as much as any. To this he gave little of
tiothic sentiment, but everything of Renaissance splendor.
His art was more material than spiritual, more brilliant and
startling in sensuous qualities, such as line and color, than
charming by facial expression or tender feeling. Some-
thing of the Paolo Veronese cast of mind, he conceived
things largely, and painted them proportionately — large
Titanic types, broad schemes and masses of color, great
sweeping lines of beauty. One value of this largeness was
its ability to hold at a distance upon wall or altar. Hence,
when seen to-day, close at hand, in museums, people are
apt to think Rubens's art coarse and gross.
There is no prettiness about his type. It is not effemi-
nate or sentimental, but rather robust, full of life and animal
spirits, full of blood, bone, and muscle — of majestic dig-
nity, grace, and power, and glowing with splendor of color.
In imagination, in conception of art purely as art, and
not as a mere vehicle to convey religious or mythological
ideas, in mental grasp of the pictorial world, Rubens
stands with Titian and Velasquez in the very front rank of
painters. As a technician, he was unexcelled. A master of
composition, modelling, and drawing, a master of light, and
a color-harmonist of the rarest ability, he, in addition, pos-
sessed the most certain, adroit, and facile hand that ever
handled a paint-brush. Nothing could be more sure than
the touch of Rubens, nothing more easy and masterful. He
was trained in both mind and eye, a genius by birth and by
education, a painter who saw keenly, and was able to realize
what he saw with certainty.
Well-born, ennobled by royalty, successful in both court
and studio, Rubens lived brilliantly and his life was a series
of triumphs. He painted enormous canvases, and the num-
ber of pictures, altar-pieces, mythological decorations, land-
scapes, portraits scattered throughout the galleries of Eu-
rope, and attributed to him, is simply amazing. He was
I'l.KMISU PAINTING
195
undoubtedly hrlpcd in many of his canvases by his [)upils,
but the WDi'ks painted li\' Ins own hand make a world of art
in themselves. He was the greatest painter of the North,
a tull-roundeil, (cunplete t;enins, eoniparable to Titian in his
nni\'ersalil\-. 1 li> pri-em-sors and masters, Van Noort (156^-
1O41) and Vaenius (i558-i62(;), gave no strong indication
-VAS DVi:K", I'ORTRAIT <iF C0RNELR:S \AN DRK GRRST. NAT. GAI,. CONDON.
of the greatness of Ruben's art, and his many pupils,
though echoing his methods, never rose to his height in
mental or artistic grasp.
, Van Dyck (1599-1641) was his principal pupil. He fol-
lowed Rubens closely at first, though in a slighter manner
technically, and with a cooler coloring. After visiting Italy
he took up with the warmth of Titian. Later, in England,
196 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
he became careless and less certain. His rank is given him
not for his figure-pieces. They were not always successful,
lacking as they did in imagination and originality, though
done with force. His best work was his portraiture, for
which he became famous, painting nobility in every country
of Europe in which he visited. At his best he was a por-
trait-painter of great power, but not to be placed in the
same rank with Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt, and Velasquez.
His characters are gracefully posed, and appear to be aris-
tocratic. There is a noble distinction about them, and yet
even this has the feeling of being somewhat affected. The
serene complacency of his lords and ladies finally became
almost a mannerism with him, though never a disagreeable
one. He died early, a painter of mark, but not the greatest
portrait-painter of the world, as is sometimes said of him.
'I'here were a number of Rubens's pupils, like Diepenbeeck
(1 596-1675), who learned from their master a certain brush
facility, but were not sufficiently original to make deep im-
pressions. When Rubens died the best painter left in Bel-
gium was Jordaens (1593-1678). He was a pupil of Van
Noort, but submitted to the Rubens influence and followed
in Rubens's style, though more florid in coloring and grosser
in types. He painted all sorts of subjects, but was seen at
his best in mythological scenes with groups of drunken
satyrs and bacchants, surrounded by a close-placed land-
scape. He was the most independent and original of the
followers, of whom there was a host. Grayer (1582-1669),
Janssens (1575-1632), Zegers (i 59 i-i 65 1 ), Rombouts (i 597-
1637), were the prominent ones. They all took an influ-
ence more or less pronounced from Rubens. Cornelius
de Vos ( I 585-1 65 1) was a more independent man — a real-
istic portrait-painter of much ability. Snyders (1579-
1657), and Fyt ( 1 609?-! 66 1 ), devoted their brushes to the
painting of still-life, game, fruits, flowers, landscape — Sny-
ders often in collaboration with Rubens himself.
FLKMISII I'AINTING.
197
T.iviiii; at the saiiu' time with these half-Itahani/.ed paiiit-
;rs, ami emuinuiiij; later in the eenlnry, there was another
^ruiip ni panUers in the Low Countries who were eiiiphat-
. 79. — TENTERS THE YOUNGER. PRODIGAL SON, LOUVRE.
ically of the soil, believing in themselves and their own
countrv and picturuig seenes from commonplace life in a
manner quite their own. These were the " Little Masters,"
the genre painters, of whom there was even a stronger rep-
resentation appearing contemporaneously in Holland. In
Belgium there were not so many nor such talented men, but
some of them were very interesting in their work as in
their subjects. Teniers the Younger (1610-1690) was among
the first of them to picture peasant, burgher, alewife, and
nobleman in all scenes and places. Nothing escaped him as
a subject, and yet his best work was shown in the handling
of low life in taverns. There is coarse wit in his work, but
198 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
it is atoned for by good color and easy handling. He was
influenced by Rubens, though decidedly different from him
in many respects. Brouwer (i6o6?-i638) has often been
catalogued with the Holland school, but he really belongs
withTeniers, in Belgium. He died early, but left a number
(^f pictures remarkable for their fine "fat" quality and their
beautiful color. He was not a man of Italian imagina-
tion, but a painter of low life, with coarse humor and not
too much good taste, yet a superb technician and vastly be-
yond many of his little Dutch contemporaries at the North.
Teniers and ISrouwer led a school and had many followers.
In a si ightly different vein was Gonzales Coques (i 6 1 S-i 6S4),
who is generally seen to advantage in pictures of interiors
with family groups. In subject he was more refined than
the othtr gc'>7n: painters, and was influenced to some extent
by Van Dyck. As a colorist he held rank, and his portraiture
(rarely seen) was excellent. At this time there were also
many painters of landscape, marine, battles, still-life — in
fact Belgium was alive with painters — but none of them was
sufficiently great to call for individual mention. Most of
them were followers of either Holland or Italy, and the gist
of their work will be spoken of hereafter under Dutch paint-
ing.
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN BELGIUM: Decline had
set in before the seventeenth century ended. Belgium was
torn by wars, her commerce flagged, her art-spirit seemed
burned out. A long line of petty painters followed whose
works call for silence. One man alone seemed to stand
out like a star by comparison with his contemporaries, Ver-
hagen (1728-1811), a portrait-painter of talent.
NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN BELGIUM: During this
century Belgium has been so closely related to France that
the influence of the larger country has been quite apparent
upon the art of the smaller. In 1S16 David, the leader of
the French classic school, sent into exile by the Restoration,
FI.KMISII I'MNTINC. 1 99
settled at llrusscls, anil ininietliatcly di'cw ai'dund him main'
|Hipils, His inllncncc was felt at once, and Francois Navez
(17S7-1S69) was the chief one among his pupils to establish
the revived classic art in ISelgium. In 1S30, with lielgian
independence and ahuost concurrently with the roniantit:
movcinou in I'rance, there began a romantic movement in
Helgiuni with Wappers (1803-1874). His art was founded
substanliallv on Rubens ; but, like the I'aris romanticists,
he chose the ilramatic subject of the times and treated it
more for color tlian for line. He drew a number of follow-
ers to himself, but the movement was not more lasting than
in l-'rance.
Wiertz (1806-1S65), whose collection of works is to be
seen in Brussels, was a partial exposition of romanticism
mixed with a what-not of eccentricity entirely his own.
Later on came a comparatively new man, Louis Gallait
(i Sio-?"), who held in fjrussels substantially the same posi-
tion that Delaroche did in Paris. His art was eclectic and
never strong, though he had many pupils at Brussels, and
started there a rivalry to A\'appers at Antwerp. Leys (1815
-1869) holds a rather unique position in Belgian art by
reason of his affectation. He at first followed Pieter de
Hdoghe and other early painters. 'Phen, after a study of
the old German painters like Cranach, he developed an
archaic style, producing a Gothic quaintness of line and
composition, mingled with old Flemish coloring. The result
was something popular, but not original or far-reaching,
though technically well done. His chief pupil was Alma
Tadema (1836-), alive to-day in London, and belonging to
no school in particular. He is a technician of ability, man-
nered in composition and subject, and somewhat perfunc-
torv in execution. His work is very popular with those who
enjov minute detail and smooth texture-painting.
In 1 85 1 the influence of the French realism of Courbet
began to be felt at Brussels, and since then Belgian art has
200
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
followed closel}' the art movements at Paris. Men like
Alfred Stevens (1828-), a pupil of Navez, are really more
French than Belgian. Stevens is one of the best of the
moderns, a painter of power in fashionable or high-life
genre, and a colorist of the first rank in modern art. Among
the recent painters but a few can be mentioned. Willems
1.1 :^Ei) ste\i-:n,s. o.n jhe iiiiAcii
(1S23-), a weak painter of fashionable ,i^f«;r; Verboeckho-
ven (1799-1881), a vastly over-estimated animal painter;
Clays (1819-), an excellent marine painter; Boulanger, a
landscapist ; Wauters (1846-), a history, and portrait-
painter ; Jan van Beers, a clever genre painter ; and Robie,
a painter of llowers.
FLEMISH PAINTING. 201
PRINCIPAL WORKS: -Hubert van Eyck, Acloialimi of llic Laml.
(Willi J.iii vail I'lyck) St. liavon tUiciil (\vini;s nt liiusstls and Ilcrlin bii|i-
ppsod to be liy J.in, the icsl hy Ihiliort) ; Jan van Eyck, as abuvc, also
Arnolt'iiu poilraits Nat. (ial. L^ii., X'irgiu ami Donor Louvre, Madonna
Staedel Miis.. Man with I'inks Hciiiii, Triunii.li of Cluircli Madrid; Van
der Weyden, a number of pietures in Brussels and Y\ntwerp Mus., also
al Slacdcl Mus., Berlin, Munich, Vienna; Cristus, Berlin, Staedel Mus.,
1 lei iiiitai;e, Madrid; Justus van Ghent, Last Sujuier Urbiiio Gal;
Bouts, St. Peter Louvain, Munich, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna ; Memling,
lliu^sels Mus. and Bruges Acad., and Hospital ^Vntwerp, Turin, Uffizi,
Munich, ^'ienna ; Van der Meire, triptych St. Bavon Ghent ; Ghaeraert
David, Bruises, Berlin, K^uien, Munich.
Massys, Brussels, .ViUwerp, Berlin, St. Betersburg ; best works Deposi-
tion in Antwerp Gal. and Merchant and Wife Louvre ; Mostert, altar-
j'leee Notre Dame Bruges ; Mabuse, Matlonnas Palermo, Milan Cathe-
dral, Prague, other works Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Antwerji; Floris,
.\nt\verp, .Vnisterdani, Brussels, Berlin, Munich, Vienna ; Barent van
Orley, ahar-pieees Church of the Saviour Antwerp, and Brussels Mus.;
Cocxie, Antwerp, Brussels, and Madrid Mus.; Pourbus, Bruges, Brus-
sels, Vienna Mus,; More, portraits Madrid, Vienna, Hague, Jhussels,
Cassel. Lou\-ie, St. Petersburg Mus.; Bril, landscapes Madrid, Louvre,
Dresden, Berlin Mus.; the landscapes of the three Breughels are to be
seen in nitist of the museums of Europe, especially at Munich, Dresden,
and Madrid.
Rubens, nranv works, 93 in Munich, 3^ in Dresden, 15 at Cassel, 16
at Berlin, 14 in London, 90 in Vienna, 66 in Madrid, 54 in Paris, 63 at
St. Petersburg (as given by Wauters), liest works at Antwerp, Vienna,
Munich, and Madrid ; Van Noort, Antwerp, Brussels Mus., (dienl and
.\ntwerpi Cathedrals ; Van Dyck, Windsor Castle, Nat. Gal. Lon., 41 in
Munich, 19 in I.)resden, 15 in Cassel, 13 in Berlin, 67 in Vienna, 21 in
Madrid, 24 in Paris, and 38 in St. Petersburg (Wauters), best examples in
\ ienna, I^ouvre, Nat. Gal. Lon. ; and iVfadiid, good example in Met.
Mus. N v.; Diepenbeeck, Antwerp Churches and Mus. , Berlin, Vi-
enna, >funich, Frankfurt ; Jordaens, Brussels, Antwerp, Munich, Vi-
enna, Cassel, Madrid, Paris; Grayer, Brussels, Munich, Vienna; Jans-
sens, Antwerp Mus., St. Bavon Ghent, Brussels and Cologne Mus.;
Zegers, Cathedral Ghent, Notre Dame Bruges, Antwerp Mus.; Rom-
bouts, Mus. and Cathedral Ghent, Antwerp Mus., Beguin Convent
Mechlin, Hospital of St. John Bruges ; De Vos, Cathedral and Mus.
Antwerp, Munich, Oldenburg, Berlin Mus.; Snyders, Munich, Dresden,
Vienna, ^^adrid, Paris, St. Petersburg; Fyt, Munich, Dresden, Cassel,
202 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Beilin, Vienna, Madrid, Paris; Teniers the Younger, 29 pictures in
Munich, 24 in Dresden, 8 in Berlin, 19 in Nat. Gal. Lon., 33 in Vienna,
52 in Madrid, 34 in Louvre, 40 in St. Petersburg (Wauters); Brauwer,
19 in Munich, 6 in Dresden, 4 in Berlin, 5 in Paris, 5 in St. Petersburgh
(Wauters); Coques, Nat. Gal. Lon., Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich Mus.
Verhagen, Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, and Vienna Mus.; Navez,
Ghent, Antwerp, and Amsterdam Mus., Nat. Gal. Berlin ; Wappers,
Amsterdam, Brussels, Versailles Mus.; Wiertz, in Wiertz Gal. Brussels;
Gallait, Liege, Versailles, Tournay, Brussels, Nat. Gal. Berlin ; Leys,
.\msterdam Mus., New Pinacothek Munich, Brussels, Nat. Gal. Berlin,
.Vntwerp Mus. and City Hall ; Alfred Stevens, Marseilles, Brussels,
frescos Royal Pal. Brussels ; Willems, Brussels Mus. and Foder Mus.
Amsterdam, Met. Mus. N. V.; Verboeckhoven, Amsterdam, Foder, Nat.
Gal. Berlin, New Pinacothek, Brussels, Ghent, Met. Mus. N. Y.; Clays,
Ghent Mus.; Wauters, Brussels, Liege Mus.; Van Beers, Burial of
Charles the Good Amsterdam Mus.
CHAPTER XVII.
DUTCH PAINTING.
Books Recommended : As before Fromentin, (Waagen's)
Kiigler ; Amand-Durand, (Eiivre de Rembrandt ; Arcliief voor
N'cdcrlaiidsche Kunst -geschiedenis ; Blanc, (Eiivre de Rem-
brandt : Bode, Franz Hals and seine Seluite ; Piode, Studieii
ziir Geschiilite der Hollandisclien Malerei; Bode, Adriaan van
Ostade ; Burger (Th. There), Les Miisees de la Hollande ;
Havard, La Peinture Holla ndaise ; Michel, Rembrandt ;
Michel, Gerard Terbitrg et sa Famille ; Mantz, Adrien Brou-
7ver ; Rooses, Dutch Painters of the Nineteenth Century;
Schmidt, Das Leben des Malers Adriaen Brouwer ; Van der
W'illigen, Les Artistes de Harlem ; Van Mander, Leven der
Xederlandsche en Hoogdiiitsehe Schilders : Vosmaer, Rembrandt,
sa Vie et ses CEui'res ; Westrheene, Jan Steen, Etude sur
r Art en Hollande ; Van Dyke, Old Dutch and Flemish Masters.
THE DUTCH PEOPLE AND THEIR ART: Though Holland pro-
duced a somewhat different quality of art from Flanders
and Belgium, yet in many respects the people at the north
were not very different from those at the south of the
Netherlands. They were perhaps less versatile, less vola-
tile, less like the French and more like the Germans. Fond
of homely joys and the quiet peace of town and domestic life,
the Dutch were matter-of-fact in all things, sturdy, honest,
coarse at times, sufificient unto themselves, and caring
little for what other people did. Just so with their paint-
ers. They were realistic at times to grotesqueness. Little
troubled with fine poetic frenzies they painted their own
lives in street, town-hall, tavern, and kitchen, conscious that
it was good because true to themselves.
204 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
At first Dutch art was influenced, even confounded, with
that of Flanders. The Van Eycks led the way, and paint-
ers like Bouts and others, though Dutch by birth, became
Flemish by adoption in their art at least. When the Flem-
ish painters fell to copying Italy some of the Dutch fol-
lowed them, but with no great enthusiasm. Suddenly, at
the beginning of the seventeenth century, when Holland
had gained political independence, Dutch art struck off by
itself, became original, became famous. It pictured native
life with verve, skill, keeness of insight, and fine pictorial
view. Limited it was ; it never soared like Italian art,
never became universal or world-embracing. It was dis-
tinct, individual, national, something that spoke for Hol-
land, but little beyond it.
In subject there were few historical canvases such as the
Italians and French produced. The nearest approach to
them were the paintings of shooting companies, or groups
of burghers and syndics, and these were merely elaborations
and enlargements of the portrait which the Dutch loved
best of all. As a whole their subjects were single figures
or small groups in interiors, quiet scenes, family confer-
ences, smokers, card-players, drinkers, landscapes, still-life,
architectural pieces. When they undertook the large can-
vas with manj- figures, they were often unsatisfactory.
Even Rembrandt was so. The chief medium was oil, used
up(jn panel or canvas. Fresco was probably used in the
early days, but the climate was too damp for it and it was
abandoned. It was perhaps the dampness of the northern
climate that led to the adaptation of the oil medium, some-
thing the Van Eycks are credited with inaugurating.
THE EAKLY PAINTING: The early work has, for the great
part, perished through time and the fierceness with which
the Iconoclastic warfare was waged. That which remains
to-day is closely allied in method and style to Flemish
painting under the Van Eycks. Ouwater is one of the
ninvil I'AINTIKC
205
earliest names Uiat appears, and perhaps for thai reas(^ii he
has l)een ealleil the foLiiulei" of the sehooL lie was re-
marked in his lime fur the excellent paiiitiiii;' of lia'J;),',r(.)Vind
landscapes ; but
there is little au-
thentic by him
left to us from
w h i c h w e m a y
form an opinion.*
Geertjen van St.
Jan (about 1475)
was e\'itlentlv a
pupil of his, and
from hmi there
are two wings of
an altar in the
\' i e n n a (iallery,
supposed t (] be
genuine. 1) (j u t s
and Mostert have
been spoken of
under the Flemish
s ch o o 1. Bosch
(1460 '-T5 16) was
a man of some
individuality wIkj produced fantastic purgatories that were
popular in their time and are known to-day through
engravings. Engelbrechsten (1468- 1533) was Dutch by
birth and in his art, and yet probably got his inspiration
from the Van Eyck school. The works attributed to him
are doubtful, though two in the Leyden (Sallery seem to
be authentic. He was the master of Lucas van Leyden
(1494-1533), the leading artist of the early period. Lu-
cas van Leyden w-as a personal friend of Albrecht Diirer,
the German painter, and in his art he was not unlike
* A Raising of Lazarus is in tlie Berlin Gallery.
F'^RTrtAn
>F A I. ADV.
206 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
him. A man with a singularly lean type, a little awkward in
composition, brilliant in color, and warm in tone, he was, de-
spite his archaic-looking work, an artist of much ability and
originality. At first he was inclined toward Flemish methods,
with an exaggerated realism in facial expression. In his mid-
dle period he was distinctly Dutch, but in his later days
he came under Italian influence, and with a weakening effect
upon his art. Taking his work as a whole, it was the
strongest of all the early Dutch painters.
SIXTEENTH CENTURY: This century was a period of Italian
imitation, probably superinduced by the action of the Flem-
ings at Antwerp. The movement was somewhat like the
Flemish one, but not so extensive or so productive. There
was hardly a painter of rank in Holland during the whole
century. Scorel (1495-1562) was the leader, and he prob-
ably got his first liking for Italian art through Mabuse at
Antwerp. He afterward went to Italy, studied Raphael and
Michael Angelo, and returned to Utrecht to open a school
and introduce Italian art into Holland. A large number of
pupils followed him, but their work was lacking in true
originality. Heemskerck (1498-1574) and Cornells van
Haarlem (1562-1638), with Steenwyck (i 550 ?-i 604), were
some of the more important men of the century, but none
of them was above a common average.
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY : Beginning with the first quarter
of this century came the great art of the Dutch people,
founded on themselves and rooted in their native character.
Italian methods were abandoned, and the Dutch told the
story of their own lives in their own manner, with truth,
vigor, and skill. There were so many painters in Holland
during this period that it will be necessary to divide them
into groups and mention only the prominent names.
PORTRAIT AND FIGURE PAINTERS : The real inaugurators
of Dutch portraiture were iNIierevelt, Hals, Ravesteyn, and
De Keyser. Mierevelt (i 567-1641) was one of the earliest,
DUTCH rAINTINC. 207
a prolific painU'i", fniul of the arislorralic sitter, and iii-
ilulgiiiL; in a i;reat ileal of elej;ance in his accessories of
dress anil the liki'. lie had a slij^ht, snKjoth brush, much
detail, and a prcifusioa of eolnr. (^uite the reverse of him
was Franz Hals (1 584 ?-i 666), ime of the most remarkable
painters of portraits with whicli history ac(|uaints us. In
^'ivini; the sense of life aiul personal physical presence, he
was unexcelled bv any one. \\'hat he saw he could portray
with the most tellint; reality. In drawing and modelling he
was usually good ; in coloring he was e.Kcellent, though in
his late work sombre ; in brush-handling he was one of the
great masters. Strong, virile, yet easy and facile, he seemed
to produce without effort. His brush was very broad in its
sweep, very sure, very true. Occasionally in his late paint-
ing facility ran to the ineffectual, but usually he was cer-
tainty itself. His best work was in portraiture, and the
most important of this is to be seen at Haarlem, wdiere he
died after a rather careless life, x^s a painter, pure and
simple, he is almost to be ranked beside Velasquez; as a
poet, a thinker, a man of lofty imagination, his work gives
us little enlightenment except in so far as it shows a fine
feeling for masses of color and problems of light. Though
excellent portrait-painters, Ravesteyn (1572?-! 657) and
De Keyser (t 596 ?-i 679) do not provoke enthusiasm. They
were cjuiet, cijnservative, dignified, painting civic guards
and societies with a knowing brush and lively color, giving
the truth of physiognomy, but not with that verve of the
artist so conspicuous in Hals, nor with that unity of the
group so essential in the making of a picture.
The next man in chronological order is Rembrandt ( i 607?-
I 669), the greatest painter in Dutch art. He was a pupil of
Swanenburch and Lastman, but his great knowledge of nat-
ure and his craft came largely from the direct study of the
model. Settled at Amsterdam, he quickly rose to fame, had
a large following of pupils, and his influence was felt
208
HISTORY OF TAINTING.
through all Dutch painting. The portrait was emphatically
his strongest work. The many-figured group he was not
always successful in composing or lighting. His method of
work rather fitted him for the portrait and unfitted him for
the large historical piece. He built up the importance of
certain features by dragging down all other features. This
FIG. 82. ^REMBRANDT. HEAD OF WOMAN. NAT. OAF. LONDON.
was largely shown in his handling of illumination. Strong
in a few high lights on cheek, chin, or white linen, the rest
of the picture was submerged in shadow, under which color
was unmercifully sacrificed. This was not the best method
for a large, many-figured piece, but was singularly well
suited to the portrait. It produced strength by contrast.
"Forced" it was undoubtedly, and not always true to nat-
DUTCH I'AiNTiNr.. ■ 209
lire, vet nevertheless most potent in Rembrandt's liands.
lie was an arbitrary tli(ui,t;h perfet t master of light-and-
shade, and nnnsually elteetive in luminons anil transparent
shadows. In eolor he was a^ain arbitrary but forcible and
harmonious. In [)rush-\vork he was at times labored, but
almost always effective.
Mentally he was a man keen to observe, assimilate, and
express his impressions in a few simple truths. His con-
ception was localized with his own people and time (he
never built up the imaginary or followed Italy), and yet
into tvpes taken from the streets and shops of Amsterdam
he infused the very largest humanity through his inherent
svmpathv with man. Dramatic, even tragic, he was ; yet
this was not so apparent in vehement action as in passion-
ate e.xpression. He had a powerful way of striking uni-
versal truths through the human face, the turned head,
bent body, or outstretched hand. His people have char-
acter, dignity, and a pervading feeling that they are the
great types of the Dutch race — people of substantial phy-
sique, slow in thought and impulse, yet capable of feeling,
comprehending, enjoying, suffering.
His landscapes, again, were a synthesis of all landscapes,
a grouping of the great truths of light, air, shadow, space.
^\'hateyer he turned his hand to was treated with that
breadth of view that overlooked the little and grasped the
great. He painted many subjects. His earliest work dates
from 1627, and is a little hard and sharp in detail and cold
in coloring. After 1654 he .grew broader in handling and
warmer in tone, running to golden browns, and, toward the
end of his career, to rather hot tones. His life was em-
bittered by many misfortunes, but these never seem to
have affected his art except to deepen it. He painted on
to the last, convinced that his own view was the true one,
and producing works that rank second to none in the his-
tory of painting.
14
2IO HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Rembrandt's influence upon Dutch art was far-reaching,
and appeared immediately in the works of his many pupils.
They all followed his methods of handling light-and-shade,
but no one of them ever equalled him, though they pro-
duced work of much merit. Bol (1611-1680) was chiefly a
portrait-painter, with a pervading yellow tone and some
pallor of flesh-coloring — a man of ability who mistakenly
followed Rubens in the latter part of his life. Flinck
(1615-1660) at one time followed Rembrandt so closely that
his work has passed for that of the master ; but latterly he,
too, came under Flemish influence. Next to Eeckhout he
was probably the nearest to Rembrandt in methods of all
the pupils. Eeckhout (1621-1674) was really a Rembrandt
imitator, but his hand was weak and his color hot. Maes
(1632-1693) was the most successful manager of light after
the school formula, and succeeded very well with warmth
and richness of color, especially with his reds. The other
Rembrandt pupils and followers were Poorter (fl. 1635-
1643), Victoors(i62o?-i672?),Koniiick (1619-168S), Fabri-
tius (1624-1654), and Backer (i6o8?-i65i).
Van der Heist (1612 ?-i67o) stands apart from this
school, and seems to have followed more the portrait style
of De Keyser. He was a realistic, precise painter, with
much excellence of modelling in head and hands, and with
fine carriage and dignity in the figure. In composition he
hardly held his characters in group owing to a sacrifice of
values, and in color he was often " spotty," and lacking in
the unitv of mass.
THE GENRE PAINTERS: This heading embraces those who
may be called the "Little Dutchmen," because of the small
scale of their pictures and their ,i,v//;v subjects, Gerard Dou
(1613-1675) is indicative of the class without fully repre-
senting it. He was a pupil of Rembrandt, but his work
gave little report of this. It was smaller, more delicate in
detail, more petty in conception. He was a man great in
UUrCII I'AINTINC.
211
little things, (iiie who wasted sti'ciii^lli mi the niiiiutia; of
dress, or table-eloth, or the texture of riiniiture without
graspiu>;' the mass or color sinnifieanee of the whole scene.
There was iulhiite detail .djout his work, and that jj;ave
it popularil\' ; but as art it held, and hokls to-day, little
hij^her place than the work of Metsu ( 1 6;,o-i 667), Van
Mieris (lO^s-idSi), Netscher (lO 59-1684), or Schalcken
(104^5-1700), all of whom produceil the interior piece with
hs^ures elaborate in accidental effects. Van Ostade (1610-
10.S5), though dealing with the small canvas, and portraying
peasant life with perhaps unnecessary coarseness, was a
much stronger |)ainter than the men just mentioned. He
was the favorite pupil of Hals and the master of Jan Steen.
"^'I'SSjabp:^^ "— ^.^^^ww^-"'""''*'^"
FIG. 83 —J. VAN KDISDAEL. LANDSCAPE.
With little delicacy in choice of subject he had much deli-
cacy in color, taste in arrangement, and skill in handling.
His brush was precise but not finical.
212 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
By far the best painter among all the " Little Dutchmen "
was Terburg (1617 ?- 1 68i), a painter of interiors, small
portraits, conversation pictures, and the like. Though of
diminutive scale his work has the largeness of view charac-
teristic of genius, and the skilled technic of a thorough
craftsman. Terburg was a travelled man, visiting Italy,
where he studied Titian, returning to Holland to study
Rembrandt, finally at Madrid studying Velasquez. He was
a painter of much culture, and the key-note of his art is re-
finement. Quiet and dignified he carried taste through all
branches of his art. In subject he was rather elevated, in
color subdued with broken tones, in composition simple, in
brush-work sure, vivacious, and yet unobtrusive. Selection
in his characters was followed by reserve in using them.
Detail was not very apparent A few people with some
accessory objects were all that he required to make a pict-
ure. Perhaps his best qualities appear in a number of
small portraits remarkable for their distinction and aristo-
cratic grace.
Steen (1626 ?-i6jg) was almost the opposite of Terburg,
a man of sarcastic flings and coarse humor who satirized
his own time with little reserve. He developed under Hals
and Van Ostade, favoring the latter in his interiors, family
scenes, and drunken debauches. He was a master of phys-
iognomy, and depicted it with rare if rather unpleasant
truth. If he had little refinement in his themes he certainly
handled them as a painter with delicacy. At his best his
many figured groups were exceedingly well composed, his
color was of good quality (with a fondness for yellows), and
his brush was as limpid and graceful as though painting
angels instead of Dutch boors. He was really one of the
fine brushmen of Holland, a man greatly admired by Sir
Joshua Reynolds, and many an artist since ; but not a man
of high intellectual pitch as compared with Terburg, for in-
stance.
DUTCH rAINTINC. 21 3
Pieter de Hooghe ( 1 6 ;^ ?- 1 6S 1 ) was a painter of ])urcly
pictiirial elicits, l)t\t;inninn' anil ciulini;' a picture in a scheme
(if coliH', atiUDsphere, clever loniposition, and above all the
play of li^lU-anil-shaile. lie \vas one of the early masters
of full sunli!;iit, painUnn" it fallinir across a cotirl-yard or
streamnii;' through a window with marvellous truth and
poetr\-. His subjects were commonplace enough. An in-
terior with a ligiu-e or two in the middle distance, and a
passage-way leading into a lighted background were suffi-
cient for limi. These formed a skeleton which he clothed
in a half-tone shadow, pierced with warm yellow light, en-
riched with rare colors, usually garnet reds and deep yel-
lows repeated in the different planes, and surrounded with
a subtle pervading atmosphere. As a brushman he was
easy but not distinguished, and often his drawing was not
correct ; but in the placing of color masses and in com-
posing by color and light he was a master of the first rank.
I,ittle is known about his life. He probably formed him-
self on Fabritius or Rembrandt at secondhand, but little
trace of the latter is apparent in his work. He seeins not
to have achieved much fame until late years, and then
rather in England than in his own country.
Jan van der Meer of Delft (1632-1675), one of the most
charming of all the ;^eiirc painters, was allied to De Hooghe
in his pictorial point of view and interior subjects. Unfort-
unately there is little left to us of this master, but the few
e.xtant e.xamples serve to show him a painter of rare qualities
in light, in color, and in atmosphere. He was a remarkable
man for his handling of blues, reds, and yellows ; and in
the tonic relations of a picture he was a inaster second to no
one. Fabritius is supposed to have influenced him.
THE LANDSCAPE PAINTERS: The painters of the Nether-
lands were probably the first, beginning with Bril, to paint
landscape for its own sake, and as a picture motive in
itself. Before them it had been used as a background for
214
HISTORY Op- TAINTING.
the figure, and was so used by many of the Dutchmen
themselves. It has been said that these landscape-painters
were also the first ones to paint landscape realistically, but
m
\
FIG. 84. — HOBBEMA. THE WATER-WHEEL. AM.STERDAM MUS.
that is true only in part. They studied natural forms, as
did, indeed, Bellini in the Venetian school ; they learned
something of perspective, air, tree anatomy, and the appear-
ance of water ; but no Dutch painter of landscape in the
seventeenth century grasped the full color of Holland or
painted its many varied lights. They indulged in a meagre
conventional palette of grays, greens, and browns, whereas
Holland is full of brilliant hues.
Van Goyen (1596-1656) was one of the earliest of the
seventeenth-century landscapists. In subject he was fond
of the Dutch bays, harbors, rivers, and canals with ship-
ping, windmills, and houses. His sky line was generally
given low, his water silvery, and his sky misty and lumi-
DUTCH I'AINTING. 215
nous with liursls iif wliilr li.ulit. In roliir Ir' was siiliilucd,
anil in [icrspci live quitr runninij; at tinirs. Salomon van
Ruisdael (i<>oo?-i(f]o) was Ins follower, it not his pupil,
lie IkuI till' same solirielv of color as his niasfer, and was a
mannered and prosaie painter in details, siieh as leaves and
Iree-liranelu's. In eoniposition he was ,U"ood, but his art
Inul onl\" a slight liasis upon rt'alit\', thoui;h it looks to be
realislie at lirst sii;ht. He had a formula for (loin);' land-
scape which he varied only in a slight way, and this con-
ventionality ran throuyh all hiswork. Molyn (1600 ?-i 66 i)
was, I painter who showed hniited truth to nature in Hat and
hilly landscapes, transparent skies, and warm coloring.
His extant works are few in number. Wynants (1615?-
1679?) was more of a realist in natural appearance than
anv of the others, a man who evidently studied directly
from nature in details of vegetation, plants, trees, roads,
grasses, and the like. Most of the figures and animals in
his landscapes were painted by other hands. He himself
was a pure landscape-painter, excelling in light and aerial
perspective, but not remarkable in color. Van der Neer
( I 603-1 677) and Everdingen (i 62 i ?- 1 675) were two other
contemporary painters of merit.
The best landscapist following the first men of the cen-
tury was Jacob van Ruisdael ( 1 625 ?-i682), the nephew of
Salomon van Ruisdael. He is put down, with perhaps un-
necessary emphasis, as the greatest landscape-painter of
the Dutch school. He was undoubtedly the e(|ual of any
of his time, though not so near tf) nature, perhaps, as Hob-
benia. He was a man of imagination, wdio at first pictured
the Dutch country about Haarlem, and afterward took up
with the romantic landscape of Van Everdingen. This
landscape bears a resemblance to the Norwegian country,
abounding, as it does, in mountains, heavy dark woods,
and lushing torrents. There is considerable poetry in its
composition, its gloomy skies, and darkened lights. It is
2l6 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
mournful, suggestive, wild, usually unpeopled. There was
much of the methodical in its putting together, and in
color it was cold, and limited to a few tones. Many of
Ruisdael's works have darkened through time. Little is
known about the painter's life except that he was not ap-
preciated in his own time and died in the almshouse.
Hobbema (1638 .'-1709) was probably the pupil of Jacob
van Ruisdael, and ranks with him, if not above him, in
seventeenth-century landscape painting. Ruisdael hardly
ever painted sunlight, whereas Hobbema rather affected it in
tiuiet wood-scenes or roadways with little pools of water and
a mill. He was a freer man with the brush than Ruisdael,
and knew more about the natural appearance of trees, skies,
and lights ; but, like his master, his view of nature found
n(j favor in his own land. Most of his work is in England,
where it had mA a little to do with influencing such painters
as Constable and others at the beginning of the nineteenth
centur)'.
LANDSCAPE WITH CATTLE: Here we meet with Wouverman
(i6T9-r668), a painter of horses, cavalry, battles, and riding
parties placed in landscape. His landscape is bright and
his horses are spirited in action. There is some mannerism
apparent in his reiterated concentration of light on a white
horse, and some repetition in his canvases, of which there
are many ; but on the whole he was an interesting, if
smooth and neat painter. Paul Potter (1625-1654) hardly
merited his great repute. He was a harsh, exact recorder
of facts, often tin-like or woodeny in his cattle, and not in
any way remarkable in his landscapes, least of all in their
composition. The Young Bull at the Hague is an ambi-
tious piece of drawing, but is not successful in color, light,
or cinniiblc. It is a brittle work all through, and not
nearly so good as some smaller things in the National
Gallery London, and in the Louvre. Adrien van de Velde
(1635 ?-i 672) was short-lived, like Potter, but managed to do
PUTcir I'AiN'rrNc.
217
a iircxliyioiis anuuml of work, sliowinj;' caUlc and li,i;urcs in
landscapr with inucli trrliniral aliilil)' ami i; I fi;cliii,i;-.
Ill' wa^ parlK'iilarU' l;oo(1 in i,dni|)osition and tin; siibllc
gradation of ncntral tnils. A liUlc of the Italian inllncnic
appeared In Ins work, and willi the nuai who canK- willi Inin
and after hnn the llahan Imitation l)eeanie \'er_\- pronomired.
Aelbert Ciiyp (i(ijo-i()9i) was a man_\'-siiled |)ainter, adopt-
ing;" at various limes eUfferciit styles, bLit was enoii.i^h of a
Fir.. 85. — ISRAELS. ALONE IN THE WORLD.
genius to be himself always. He is best known to us,
perhaps, by his yellow sunlight effects along rivers, with
cattle in the fcjreground, though he painted still-life, and
even portraits and marines. In composing a group he was
knowing, recording natural effects with power ; in light
and atmosphere he was one of the best of his time, and in
texture and cohjr refined, and frequently brilliant. Both
(i 6 10-1650 ?), Berchem (1 620-1683), Du Jardin (1622 ?-i 678),
followed the Italian tradition of Claude Lorrain, producing
semi-classic landscapes, never very convincing in their
2l8 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
originality. Van der Heyden (i 637-1 7 12), should be men-
tioned as an excellent, if minute, painter of architecture
with remarkable atmospheric effects.
MAKINE AND STILL-LIFE PAINTERS: There were two pre-
eminent marine painters in this seventeenth century,
Willem van de Velde (i 633-1 707) and Backhuisen (1631-
I 708). The sea was not an unusual subject with the Dutch
landscapists. Van Goyen, Simon de Vlieger (1601 ?-i 660 ?),
Cuyp, Willem van de Velde the Elder (1 6 1 1 ?-i 693), all
employed it ; but it was Van de Velde the Younger who
really stood at the head of the marine painters. He knew
his subject thoroughly, having been well grounded in it by
his father and De Vlieger, so that the painting of the Dutch
fleets and harbors was a part of his nature. He preferred
the ciuiet haven to the open sea. Smooth water, calm skies,
silvery light, and boats lying listlessly at anchor with
drooping sails, made up his usual subject. The color was
almost always in a key of silver and gray, very charming in
its harmony and serenity, but a little thin. Both he and his
father went to England and entered the service of the
English king, and thereafter did English fleets rather than
Dutch ones. Backhuisen was quite the reverse of Van de
Velde in preferring the tempest to the calm of the sea. He
also used more brilliant and varied colors, but he was not
so happy in harmony as Van de Velde. There was often
dryness in his handling, and something too much of the
theatrical in his wrecks on rocky shores.
'l"he still-life painters of Holland were all of them rather
petty in their emphasis of details such as figures on table-
covers, water-drops on flowers, and fur on rabbits. It was
labored work with little of the art spirit about it, except as
the composition showed good masses. A number of these
painters gained celebrity in their day by their microscopic
labor over fruits, flowers, and the like, but they have no
great rank at the present time. Jan van Heem (1600?-
DUTCH I'AINTINC. 219
1 (>S4 ') Wcis perhaps tlu- ht'St painter of flowers aniDii)^ llicin.
Van Huysum ( l dS^-i 74()) sueeeeded with the same sul)jerl
beyoiul liis deserts. Hondecoeter ( i ();()- i 6()5) was a imicpie
painter of poultry; Weenix ( i 640- 1 7 i 9) and Van Aelst
( I ():;o- 1 ();()), of dead ,<;anie ; Kalf ( 1 (^'.lO ?- 1 693), of pots,
pans, dishes, and ve.<;'etahles.
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY: 'I'his was a period of decadence
during" wliieli there was no ori,L;-inalit)' worth spealcinj; about
anionu the Dutch painters. Reahsm in minute features
Wcis carried to tlie extreme, and imitation of the early men
took the place of invention. J'^verythintj was prettified and
elaborated until there was a porcelain smoothness and a
photographic exactness inconsistent with true art, Adriaan
van der Werif (1659-1722), and Philip van Dyck (1O85-
1 75 j) with their " ideal " inanities are typical of the cen-
tury's art. There was nothing to commend it. The lowest
point of affectation liad been reached,
NINETEENTH CENTURY: The Dutch painters, unlike the
Belgians, have almost always been true to their own tra-
ditions and their own country. Even in decadence the
most of them feebly followed their own painters rather than
those of Italv and France, and in the early nineteenth cen-
tur)' they were not affected by the French classicism of
David, Later on there came into vogue an art that had
some affinity with that of Millet and Courbet in France. It
was the Dutch version of modern sentiment about the labor-
ing classes, fountled on the modern life of Holland, yet in
reality a continuation of the style or ,i,'-(7//r practised by the
early Dutchmen, Israels (1824-) is a revival or a survival
of Rembrandtesque methods with a sentiment and feeling
akin to the French Millet. He deals almost exclusively
with peasant life, showing fisher-folk and the like in their
cottage interiors, at the table, or before the fire, with good
effects of light, atmosphere, and much pathos. Technically
he is rather labored and heavy in handling, but usually
2 20
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
effective with sombre color in giving the unity of a scene.
Artz (1837- 1 890) considered himself in measure a follower
of Israels, though he never studied under him. His pict-
ures in subject are like those of Israels, but without the
depth of the latter. Blommers (1845-) is another peasant
painter who follows Israels at a distance, and Neuhuys
(1844-) shows a similar style of work. Bosboom (181 7-
1 89 I ) e.xcelled in representing interiors, showing, with much
pictorial effect, the light, color, shadow, and feeling of space
and air in large cathedrals.
The brothers Maris have made a distinct impression on
modern Dutch art, and, strange enough, each in a different
way from the others. James Maris ( i 837-) studied at Paris,
and is remarkable for fine, vigorous views of canals, towns,
and landscapes. He is broad in handling, rather bleak in
coloring, and e.vcels in fine luminous skies and voyaging
clouds. Matthew Maris (1835-), Parisian trained like his
MAUVE. SHEEP.
brother, lives in London, where little is seen of his work.
He paints for himself and his friends, and is rather melan-
choly and mystical in his art. He is a recorder of visions
nuTcii rAiNi'iN<;. 221
aiul tircams rather than the siibstaiUial ihiiij^s of the earth,
but alwavs witli fielincss nl" mhir aiul a line Llccorativc feel-
ing. Willem Maris (I S ^()-), Sdnutinies called the " SiU-ery
Maris," is a portra\'er of eattle and landseape in warm suii-
liglU and haze with a ehann (if lolor and tone often stig'-
gestive of t'orot. Jongkind ( 1X19-189 i ) stands liy himself,
Mesdag (iS^^i-) is a line painter of marines and sea-shores,
and Mauve (^iS^S-iSSS), a eattle and shee|) painter, with ni( e
sentiment and tonalit\', whose renown is just now somewhat
disjiroportionate to his artistie ability. In addition there are
some other artists of promise, sueh as Kever, Poggenbeek,
Bastert.
EXTANT WORKS; tJenerally speaking tlie Lest examples of tlie Dutch
schools are siill to he seen hi the Irjcal nutscums uf Holland, especially the
.-Vmstcrdani and Hague Mils. ; Bosch, Madrid, Antwer[>, Brussels Mus. ;
Lucas van Leyden, .Vntwerp, I^eyden, Munich IMiis. ; Scorel, Amster-
dam, Rotterdam, Haarlem Mus.; Heemslcerck, Haarlem, Hague, Berlin,
Cassel, Dresden; Steenwyck, Amsterdam, Hague, Brussels; Cornelis
van Haarlem, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Brunswick,
PoRTR.\iT AND Figure Painters — Mierevelt, Hague, Amsterdam,
Ki'tterdam, Brunswick, Dresden, Copenhagen; Hals, iiest works to lie
seen at Haarlem, others at Amsterdam, l-Jrussels, Hague, Berlin, Cassel,
Louvre, Xat. Ga\. Loii., Met. Mus. New York, Art Institute Chicago ;
Rembrandt, Amsterdam, Hermitage, Louvre, Munich, Berlin, Dresden,
Madrid, London; Bol, Amsterdam, Hague, Itresden, Louvre ; Flinck,
Amsterdam, Hague, IJerliu ; Eeckhout, .Vmsterdam, Itrunswick, Ber-
lin, Munich; Maes, Nat. Gal. Lon., Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hague,
Jtrussels ; Poorter, Amsterdam, Brussels, Dresden ; Victoors, Am-
sterdam, Copenhagen, Brunswick, Dresden ; Fabritius, Rotterdam,
.Amsteraam, Berlin ; Van der Heist, best works at Amsterdam iMus.
Genre Painters — Examples of Dou, Metsu, Van Mieris, Netscher,
Schalcken, Van Ostade, are to be seen in almost all the galleides of
Europe, especially the Dutch, Belgian, German, and French galleries;
Terburg, Amsterdam, Louvre, Dresden, Berlin (fine portraits) ; Steen,
Amsterdam, Louvre, Rotterdam, Hague, Berlin, Cassel, Dresden, Vienna;
De Hooghe.Nat. Gal, Lon., Louvre, Amsterdam, Hermitage ; Van der
Meer of Delft, Louvre, Hague, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden, Met. Mus.
New York.
222 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
Landscape Painters — Van Goyen, Amsterdam, Fitz-William Mus
Cambridge, Luuvre, Brussels, Cassel, Dresden, Berlin ; Salomon van
Ruisdael, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Dresden, Munich ; Van der
Neer, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dresden;
Everdingen, Amsterdam, Berlin, Louvre, Brunswick, Dresden, Munich,
Frankfort; Jacob van Ruisdael, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Amsterdam,
Berlin, Dresden ; Hobbema, best works in England, Nat. Gal. Lon.,
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Dresden ; Wouvermans, many works, best at
Amsterdam, Cassel, Louvre ; Potter, Amsterdam, Hague, Louvre, Nat.
Gal. Lon.; Van de Velde, Amsterdam, Hague, Cassel, Dresden, Frank-
fort, Munich, Louvre ; Cuyp, Amsterdam, Nal. Gal. Lon., Louvre,
Munich, Dresden ; examples of Both, Berchem, Du Jardin, and Van
der Heyden, in almost all of the Dutch and German galleries, besides the
Louvre and Nat. Gal. Lon.
Marine Painters — Willem van de Velde Elder and Younger,
Backhuisen, Vlieger, together with the flower and fruit painters like
Huysum, Hondecoeter, Weenix, have all been prolific workers, and
almost every European gallery, especially those at London, Amsterdam,
and in Germany, have examples of their works ; Van der Werff and
Philip van Dyck are seen at their best at Dresden.
The best works of the modern men are in private collections, many in the
United States, some examples of them in the Amsterdam and Hague Mu-
seums. Also some examples of the old Dutch masters in New York
Hist. Society Library, Yale School of Fine Arts, Met. Mus. New York,
Boston Mus., and Chicago Institute.
CHAPTER XVIII.
GERMAN I'AINTING.
Books Recommf.ndkd : (Zo\\\vi, A. Diiri-i\his Teachers, his
Hii'iils, and his Scholars; Eye, Lebcn uiid ll'erhe Albreciit
Diirers ; Forster, Peter von Cornelius; Forster, Geschichfe der
Deutschen Kunst; Keane, Early Teutonic, Italian, and French
Painters : Kiigler, Handbook to German and A^etherland
Schools, trans, by Crowe ; Merk), Die Meister der altkolnischer
Malcrschule ; Pecht, Deutsche Kiinstler des Neunzehnten
yahrhunderts ; Reber, Geschichte der neueren Deutschen
Kunst; Riegel, Deutsche Kiinststudien ; Rosenberg, Die Per-
lincr Jfalerschule ; Rosenberg, Sebald und Parthel Pehani ;
Ruiiiohr, llaus Holbein der JUiii^ere ; Sandrart, Teutsche
Akadeniie der Jullen Pan,- Pild- und Malerey-Kiinste ; Schu-
chardt, Lucas Cranach's Lebcn ; Thausig, Albert DUrer,
His Life and Works ; ^\'aagen, Kiinsticcrke und Kiinstler in
Dcutschland ; E. aus'iii Weerth, M'andnuilereien des ALittelal-
ters in den Lilvinlanden : Wessely, Adolph Menzel ; Woltmann,
Holbein and his Time : \\'oltniann, Geschichte der Deutschen
Kunst im Plsass : W'urtzbach, ALartin Schonf^auer.
EAELY GERMAN PAINTING; The Teutonic lands, like almost
all of the countries of Europe, received their first art im-
pulse from Christianity through Italy. The centre of the
faith was at Rome, and from there the influence in art spread
west and north, and in each land it was modified by local
peculiarities of type and temperament. In Germany, even
in the early days, though Christianity was the theme of early
illuminations, miniatures, and the like, and though there
was a traditional form reaching back to Italy and Byzan-
tium, yet under it was the Teutonic type — the material,
awkward, rather coarse Germanic point of view. The wish
224
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
to realize native surroundings was apparent from tlie begin-
ning.
It is probable tliat the earliest painting in Germany took
the form of illuminations. At what date it first appeared is
.87-
-inCHNKR.
STS. JOHN, CATUF-RTN'F, AND M AI'lllEW. NAT. CAI.. I.O.\ IJf IN'.
unknown. In wall-painting a poor quality of work was ex-
ecuted in the churches as early as the ninth century, and
probably earlier. The oldest now extant are those at Ober-
zeli, dating back to the last part of the tenth century. Bet-
ter examples are seen in the Lower Church of Schwarzrhein-
dorf, of the twelfth century, and still better in the choir
and transept of the Brunswick cathedral, ascribed to the
early thirteenth century.
All of these works have an archaic appearance about
GKKMAN rAINTING. 225
tlu-ni, but they are better in composition and drawing than
the productions of Italy and liyzantiuni at tliat time. It is
lil<elv tliat all the (lerman churches at this time were tlec-
orated, but most of the paintings have been destroyed.
The usual mellioil was to cover the walls and wooden eeil-
nigs with blue ^rouiuls, and upon these to place figures sur-
rounded by architectural ornaments. Stained glass was also
used extensively. I'anel painting seems to have come into
existence before the thirteenth century (whether developed
trom miniature or wall-painting is unknown), and was used
tor altar decorations. 'I'he panels were done in tempera
with figures in light colors upon gold grounds. The spirit-
ualitv of the age with a mingling of northern sentiment ap-
peared in the figure. This figure was at times graceful, and
again awkward and archaic, according to the place of pro-
duction and the influence of either France or Italy. The
oldest panels extant are from the Wiesenkirche at Soest,
now in the Berlin Museum. They do not date before the
thirteenth centurv.
FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES; In the four-
teenth century the infiuence of France began to show
strongly in willowy figures, long flowing draperies, and
sentimental poses. The artists along the Rhine showed
this more than those in the provinces to the east, where a
ruder if freer art appeared. The best panel-painting of
the time was done at Cologne, where we meet with the name
of the first painter, Meister Wilhelm, and where a school
was established usually known as the
SCHOOL OF COLOGNE: This school probably got its senti-
mental inclination, shown in slight forms and tender ex-
pression, from France, but derived much of its technic from
the Netherlands. Stephen Lochner, or Meister Stephen,
(fl. 1450) leaned toward the Flemish methods, and in his
celebrated picture, the Madonna of the Rose Garden, in the
Cologne Museum, there is an indication of this ; but there
IS
226
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
is also an individuality showing the growth of German in-
dependence in painting. The figures of his Dombild have
FIG. 8S. — AVOLGEMUT. CRUCIFIXION.
little manliness or power, but considerable grace, pathos
and religious feeling. They are not abstract types but the
GERMAN rAINTINr.. " 227
spii'itiKilizcil people of Ihe roimtry in native costumes, with
niueh ,uoUl, lewilrw ami aniioi-. Cold was used instead ol
a landscape background, and the forej^i-ound was spattered
with (lowers and lea\es. I'he outlines are ratlier hard, antl
none of the aerial perspective of tile l''leniini;s is yiven.
After a lime l''reuch sentiineut was still further encroached
upon bv Meniish realism, as shown in the works of the
Master of the Lyversberg Passion (ll. about 1463-1480), to
be seen in the C'olooiie Museum.
BOHEMIAN SCHOOL: It was not On the Lower Rliine alone
that ('.crnian paintini;' was practised. The lioheniian
>chool, located near I'rague, flourished for a short time in
the foLU-teenth Century, under Charles IV., with Theodorich
of Prague (ll. 1 348-1 37S), Wurmser, and Kunz, as the chief
masters, d'lieir art was ipute the reverse of the Cologne
panitcrs. It was heavy, clumsy, bony, awdvward. If more
orijjinal it was less graceful, not so pathetic, not so relig-
ious. Sentiment was slurred through a harsh attempt at
realism, and the religious subject met with something of a
ciieck in the romantic mediaeval chivalric theme, painted
(juite as often on the castle wall as the scriptural theme
im the church wall. After the close of the fourteenth cen-
tury wall-painting began to die out in favor of panel pict-
ures.
NTJKEMBERG SCHOOL: Half-way between the sentiment of
(.'ologne and the realism of Prague stood the early school
of Nuremberg, with no known painter at its head. Its
chief work, the Imhof altar-piece, shows, however, that
the Nuremberg masters of the early and middle fif-
teenth century were between eastern and western influ-
ences. They inclined to the graceful swaying figure, fol-
lowing more the sculpture of the time than the Cologne
type.
FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES: Cerman art, if
begun in the fourteenth century, hardly showed any depth
228
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
or breadth until the fifteenth century, and no real individ-
ual strength until the sixteenth century. It lagged behind
the other countries of FAirope and produced the cramped
archaic altar-piece.
Then when printing
was invented the
painter- e ngraver
came into existence.
He was a man who
painted panels, but
found his largest
audience through
the circulation of
engravings. T h e
two kinds of arts
being produced by
the one man led to
much detailed line
work with the
brush. Engraving
is an influence to be
borne in mind in ex-
amining the paint-
ing of this period.
FRANCONIAN SCHOOL: Nuremberg was the centre of this
school, and its most famous early master was Wolgemut
(1434-1519), though Plydenwurff is the first-named painter.
After the latter's death Wolgemut married his widow and
became the head of the school. His paintings were chiefly
altar-pieces, in which the figures were rather lank and nar-
row-shouldered, with sharp outlines, indicative perhaps of
the influence of wood-engraving, in which he was much in-
terested. There was, however, in his work an advance in
characterization, nobility of expression, and quiet dignity,
and it was his good fortune to be the master of one of the
n. 89. — DURER.
I^AYING VIRGIN. AUGSBURG.
(;i;KiMan I'AIntini;, 229
inusl Ihonniolily original painkTS of all the C'lCrnian s(liiiiils
— Albrecht Diirer ( 147 i-is-'S).
\\"[t.U \H\vcv ami Udlhein Cicriiian arl reached its apo-
gee in the lust half of the sixteenth century, }'et their work
\\>is not ilillerent in spirit from that of their predeeessoi's.
Tamtmy simply developed and l)eeanie foreeful and ex-
pressive teehnieally without cd)andoning- its early cliaraeter.
There is in Hiirer a naive awkwardness of figure, some
anguhirity of line, strain of pose, and in composition often-
times huddling anil overloading of the scene with details.
'I'herc IS not that largeness which seemed native to his Ital-
ian contemporaries. He was hamjiered by that (lerman ex-
actness, which found its best expression in engraving, and
which, though unsuited to jiainting, nevertheless crept into
it. 'Within these limitations Diirer produced the typical art
ol Cicrmany m the Renaissance time — an art more attractive
lor the charm and beauty of its parts than for its unity, or
its general impression. Diirer was a travelled man, visited
Italy and the Netherlands, and, though he always remained
a German in art, yet he picked up some Italian methods
from Bellini and Mantegna that are faintly apparent in
some of his works. In subject he was almost exclusively
religious, painting the altar-piece with infinite care upon
wooden panel, canvas, or parchment. He never worked in
fresco, preferring oil and tempera. In drawing he was often
harsh and faulty, in draperies cramped at times, and then,
again, as in the Apostle panels at Munich, very broad, and
effective. Many of his pictures show a hard, dry brush,
and a few, again, are so free and mellow that they look as
though done by another hand. He was usually minute in
detail, especially in such features as hair, cloth, flesh. His
portraits were uneven and not his best productions. He
was too close a scrutinizer of the part and not enough of an
observer of the whole for good |iortraiture. Indeed, that is
the criticism to be made upon all his work. He was an ex-
230
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
(juisite realist of certain features, but not always of the en-
semble. Nevertheless he holds first rank in the German art
of the Renaissance, not only on account of his technical
ability, but also because of his imagination, sincerity, and
striking originality.
Diirer's influence was wide-spread throughout Germany,
especially in engraving, of which he was a master. In paint-
ing Schaufelin (i49o?~i54o?) was probably his apprentice,
and in his work followed the master so closely that many of
his works have been attributed to Uiirer. This is true in
-HOLIiRIN -IHE \Ori\Glilv-.
HAGl E iMtlS.
measure of Hans Baldung (1476 ?-i552 ?). Hans von Kulm-
bach (?-iS22) was a painter of more than ordinary impor-
tance, brilliant in coloring, a follower of Durer, who was in-
CFRMAN I'AINTING. 23I
cliiicil toward Italian iiK'tliiitls, an inclination that aftcrwanl
ilcN-clopod all thi-oii;;li (Ici'man art. l-ollowin;;" DUixt's for-
iiuilas oanic a lai\L;r niniihrr of so-called " I ,ittlc Masters"
(Irom the si/e of their engraved plates), who were more en-
L;ravers than painters. .\nionLJ the more important of those
who were p.nnters as well as engravers were Altdorfer
( I 4S0 ?-i5 :;S), a rival rather than an nuitatorof l)iirer; Bar-
thel Beham (150^-1540), Sebald Beham (1500-1550), Pencz
(1500^-1550), Aldegrever (i5o;-i558), and Bink (1490?-
151")").
SWABIAN SCHOOL: 'Idiis school includes a luimher of
painters who were located at different places, like Colniar
and L'lni, and later on it included the Holbeins at Aiii^rs-
buru", who were really the consummation of the school. In
the fifteenth century one of the early leaders was Martin
Schongauer (1446 ?-i4SS), at Colmar. He is supposed to
have been a pupd (jf RoLjer Van der W'eyden, of the Flemish
school, and is Ijetter kiKjwn by his engravings than his
paintings, none of the latter being p(jsitively authenticated.
He was thoroughlv German in his type and treatment,
though, perhaps, indebted to the Flemings for his coloring.
There was some angularity in his figures and draperies,
and a tendeiicv to get nearer nature and further away
from the ecclesiastical and ascetic conception in all that
he did.
.\t Ulm a local school came into existence with Zeitblom
(t]. 1484-15 17), who was probably a pupil of Schiichlin.
He had neither .Schongauer's force nor his fancy, but was a
simple, straightforward painter of one rather strong type.
His drawing was not good, except in the draperies, Ijut he
was quite remarkable for the solidity and substance of his
painting, considering the age he lived in was given to hard,
thin brush-work. Schaffner (11. 1500-1535) was another
Ulm |xdnter, a junior to Zeitblom, of whom little is known,
save from a few pictures graceful and free in composition.
232
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
A recently discovered man, Bernard Strigel (1461 ?-i52S?)
sccnis to have been excellent in portraiture.
At Augsburg there was still another school, which came
into prominence in the sixteenth century with Burkmair
and the Holbeins. It was only a part of the Swabian school,
a concentration of artistic force about Augsburg, which,
toward the close of the fifteenth century, had come into
competition with Nuremberg, and rather outranked it in
FIG. 91. — PILOTY. WISE AND FOOLISH VIRGINS.
splendor. It was at Augsburg that the Renaissance art in
Clermany showed in more restful composition, less angu-
larit)', better modelling and painting, and more sense of the
euscmhk of a picture. Hans Burkmair ( 1 473- 1531) was the
founder of the school, a pupil of .Schongauer, later in-
fluenced by Diirer, and finally showing the influence of
Italian art. He was not, like Diirer, a religious painter,
though doing religious subjects. He was more concerned
with wordly appearance, of which he had a large knowl-
edge, as may be seen from his illustrations for engraving.
As a painter he was a rather fine colorist, indulging in the
GF.KMAN PAINTINf:. 233
faiUaslic of arrhiU'ctiiii' but with ^dud taslr, cnHlc In ilr.iw-
iiig hut liii'icl III, ami al linirs i;i\in,:; cxirlliiit i'll\'(ls of
motinii. \\v was ri)UiuU'r, Inllci', I'alnicr in r(im|)i)sitiiiii
than Uiirrr, hut lU'vcr so sti-miu;- an artist.
Next til riiitkinair (.-iiinrs the (■ciehratcd llolhcm family.
There were four of them all told, but only two of them,
ILms the l''dder ,ind llaiis the N'oimtjer, need be mentioned.
Holbein the Elder ( i 4O0 ?-i 5 -4), after Uurkmair, was tlie
best [lainter of his lime ami sehool without beiiij^ in him-
self a great artist. Seh()ni,rauer was at first his ,<;uide,
though he soon submitted to some I'leniish and Colotjne
inlluenee, and later on followed Italian form and method
in eomposilion to some e.\tent. 1 le was a ,t;ood drauglits-
nian. and verv elever at catchinsj; reahstie points of ph)'s-
ii.igaiomy — a g\U he left his son Hans. In a(lditir)n he harl
some feeling for arehiteeture and ornament, and in hand-
ling was a bit hard, and oftentimes careless. The best halt
of his life fell in the latter part of the fifteenth century,
and he never achieved the free painter's qualitv of his son.
Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-154,^) holds, with Diirer,
the high place in German art. He was a more mature
painter than Diirer, coming as he did a tjuarter (jf a cen-
tury later. He was the Renaissance artist of (lermany,
whereas Diirer alwavs had a little of the Gothic clinging to
him. The two men were widely different in their points
of view and in their work. Diirer was an idealist seeking
after a type, a reli.gious painter, a painter of panels with
the spirit of an engraver. Holbein was emphatically a real-
ist finding material in the actual life about him, a designer
of cartoons and large wall paintings in something of the
Italian spirit, a man who painted reli.gious themes but with
little spiritual significance.
It is probable that he got his first instruction from his
father and from Ijurkmair. He was an infant prodigv, de-
veloped early, saw much foreign art, and showed a number
234 iriSTORV OF PAINTING.
of tendencies in his work. In composition and drawing he
appeared at times to be following Mantegna and the north-
ern Italians ; in brush-work he resembled the Flemings, es-
pecially Massys ; yet he was never an imitator of either
Italian or Flemish painting. Decidedly a self-sufficient and
an observing man, he travelled in Italy and the Netherlands,
and spent much of his life in England, where he met with
great success at court as a portrait-painter. P'rom seeing
much he assimilated much, yet always remained German,
changing his style but little as he grew older. His w'all
paintings have perished, but the drawings from them are
preserved and show him as an artist of much invention. He
is now known chiefly by his portraits, of which there are
many of great excellence. His facility in grasping physiog-
nomy and realizing character, the cjuiet dignity of his com-
position, his firm modelling, clear outline, harmonious color-
ing, excellent detail, and easy solid painting, all place him
in the front rank of great painters. That he was not always
bound down to literal facts maybe seen in his many designs
for wood-engravings. His portrait of Hubert Morett, in
the Dresden Gallery, shows his art to advantage, and there
are many portraits by him of great spirit in England, in the
Louvre, and elsewhere.
SAXON SCHOOL: Lucas Cranach (1472-1553) was a Fran-
conian master, who settled in Saxony and was successively
court-painter to three Electors and the leader of a small
local school there. He, perhaps, studied under Griinewald,
but was so positive a character that he showed no strong
school influence. His work was fantastic, odd in concep-
tion and execution, sometimes ludicrous, and always archaic-
looking. His type was rather strained in proportions,
not always well drawn, but graceful even when not truth-
ful. This type was carried into all his works, and finally
became a mannerism u ith him. In subject he was religious,
mythological, romantic, pastoral, with a preference for the
C.EKMAN I'AINTINC.
luulr ligure. In loldrinn lir \\as at first i^oldcii, then brown,
ami Inially cold and s()nd)rc. 'I'lir laik of aerial perspective
and sIkhIow masses ,L;"a\e his work a (pieer look, and he was
never much ot a brushman. llis pietnres were t\'pical of
the time and conntr\', and for that and for their strong- in-
divitluality they are ranked amons;- the most interesting
pamtmgs of the (lerman school, I'erhaps his most satis-
factory works are his portraits. Lucas Cranach the Young'er
(1515-15S6) was the best of the elder Cranach's pupils.
Many of his jiictures are attributed to his father. He foi-
lowetl the elder closely, but was a weaker man, with a
smoother brush and a more
rosy color. Though there
were manv pupils the schot)l
did not go beyond the Cra-
nach family. It began with
the father and died with the
son.
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGH-
TEENTH CENTURIES: These
were unrelieved centuries of
decline in Cierman painting.
After I)iirer, Holbein, and
Cranach had passed there
came about a senseless imi-
tation of Italv, combined
with an equally senseless
imitation of detail in nature
that produced nothing wor-
thy of the name of original
or genuine art. It is not
probable that the Reformation had any more to do Avith
this than with the decline in Italy. It was a period of
barrenness in both countries. The Italian imitators in Ger-
many were chiefly Rottenhammer (1564-1623), and Elzheimer
IN CHIKCH
236 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
(1574 ?-i62o). After them came the representative of the
other extreme in Denner (1685-1749), who thought to be
great in portraiture by the minute imitation of hair, freckles,
and three-days'-old beard — a petty and unworthy realism
which excited some curiosity but never held rank as art.
Mengs (172S-1779) sought for the sublime through eclec-
ticism, but never reached it. His work, though academic
and correct, is lacking in spirit and originality. Angelica
KaufFman (i 741-1807) succeeded in pleasing her inartistic
age with the simply pretty, while Carstens (i 754-1 798)
was a conscientious if mistaken student of the great Ital-
ians — a man of some severity in form and of academic incli-
nations.
NINETEENTH CENTURY: In the first part of this century
there started in Germany a so-called " revival of art " led
by Overbeck (i 789-1 869), Cornelius (17S3-1S67), Veit (1793-
1S77), and Schadow (1789-1862), but like many another revi-
val of art it did not amount to much. The attempt to
"revive" the past is usually a failure. The forms are
caught, but the spirit is lost. The nineteenth-century at-
tempt in Germany was brought about by the study of
monumental painting in Italy, and the taking up of the re-
ligious spirit in a pre-Raphaelite manner. Something also
of German romanticism was its inspiration. Overbeck re-
mained in Rome, but the others, after some time in Italy,
returned to Germany, diffused their teaching, and really
formed a new epoch in German painting. A modern art
began with ambitions and subjects entirely disproportionate
to its skill. The monumental, the ideal, the classic, the
exalted, were spread over enormous spaces, but there was
no reason for such work in the contemporary German life,
and nothing to warrant its appearance save that its better
had appeared in Italy during the Renaissance. Cornelius
after his return became the head of the
MUNICH SCHOOL and painted pictures of the heroes of the
C.ERMAN rAFNTINC. 237
classic ami the C'livistian worlil u|)()ii a lar^x- scale. NolliiiiLC
but their si/.c ami Ljddd intcnticn ever lir(iUi;IU llieiiiinlo no-
tice, I'cr tlu'ir lunu ami coloniii; were bolli comnionplace.
Schnorr (i7()4-iS7j) lullowetl in the same style with the
Xiebeluny'cn Lieil, Cliarlemagne, ami llaiiiarossa for subjects.
Kaiilbach ( i 805- 1 S74) was a pupil of Cornelius, and had some
abihtv but little taste, and not enough originality to produce
great art. Piloty ( i 82O- I SS6) was more realistic, more of a
pamter and ranks as one of the best of the early Munich
masters. After linn iMimich art liecame .^'vv/rrdike in subject,
with greater attention given to truthful representation in
light, color, texture. 'I'o-ilay there are a large number of
painters in the school who are remarkable for realistic detail.
DUSSELDORF SCHOOL: After 1S26 this school came into
|irominence under the guidance of Schadow. ft did not
faiic)- monumental painting so much as the common easel
picture, with the sentimental, the dramatic, or the romantic
suliject. It was no better in either form or color than the
Munich school, in fact not so good, though there were
painters who emanated from it who had al)ility. At Berlin
the inclination was to follow the methods and ideas held at
Dusseldorf.
The whole academic tendency of modern painting in Ger-
many and Austria for the past fifty years has not been favor-
able to the best kind of pictorial art. There is a disposition
on the part of artists to tell stories, to encroach upon the sen-
timent of literature, to paint with a dry brush in harsh un-
svmpathetic colors, to ignore relations of light-and-shade,
and to slur beauties of form. The subject seems to count
for more tlian the truth of representation, or the individu-
ality of view. From time to time artists of much ability
have appeared, but these form an exception rather than a
rule. The men to-day who are the great artists of Germany
are less followers of the German tradition than individuals
each working in a style peculiar to himself. A few only of
235
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
them call for mention. Menzel (1815-) is easily first, a
painter of group pictures, a good colorist, and a powerful
pen-and-ink draughtsman ; Lenbach (i 836-), a forceful por-
-MENZEL. A READER.
traitist ; Uhde (1 848-), a portrayer of scriptural scenes in
modern costumes with much sincerity, good color, and
light ; Leibl (i 844-1900), an artist with something of the
Holbein touch and realism ; Thoma, a Frankfort painter of
decorative friezes and panels ; Liebermann, Gottbardt Kuebl,
Franz Stuck, Max Klinger.
Aside from these men there are several notable painters
with frerman affinities, like Makart (1840-1884), an Austrian,
who possessed good technical qualities and indulged in a pro-
fusion of color ; Munkacsy (1846-1900), a Hungarian , who is
perhaps more Parisian than German in technic, and Bocklin
(1827-1901), a Swiss, who is quite by himself in fantastic and
grotesque subjects, a weird and uncanny imagination, and a
brilliant prismatic coloring.
GERMAN PAINTING. SjQ
PRINCIPAL WORKS; r.i>iiKMiAN Sciiooi.— Theoderich of Prague,
K.uislcin cli.ip. ail. I L'liivci si(y I, ihniry rraguc, Vicuna Mns. ; Wurmser,
same places.
Fkanchnian Schooi. — Wolgemut, AscliaKcnlmrg, Munich, Nnicni-
berg, Cassel Mas. ; Diirer, C'lucilixiun Dresden, Triiiily Vienna Mus.,
olher works Munieli, Nureniliery, Mailriil Mus. ; Schaufelin, l;aslc,
ISanilieri;, Cassel, Munieli, Nuienilieit;, Niinllingen Mus., ami Ulln
Catlicilral ; Baldung, .Vseli.iffenluiri;, liasle, lleiiin, Kunsllialle Carlsrulie,
Freiluiri; Callieilral ; Kulmbach, Munich, Nurcinlieig, Ohlcnluir!; ;
Altdorfer aiul ihe " I.illlc Maslers " are seen in the .'Vugsluirg, Nuremberg,
Uerlin, Munich and I- ilrslcnberg Mus.
Su'AiUAN School — Schongauer, aUrilmted picUircs Culmar Mus. ;
Zeitblom, .\ugslnirg, licrlin, Carlsrulie, Munich, Nuremberg, Simaringen
Mu^. ; Schaffner, Munich, Schliessheim, Nuremberg, Uhii Cathedral;
Strigel, IJerlui, Carlsruhe, Munich, Nuremberg ; Burkmair, Augsburg,
lieilin, Munich, Maurice chap. Nuremberg; Holbein the Elder,
Augsburg, Nuremberg, Basle, Stiidel Mus., Frankfort ; Holbein the
Younger, liasle, Carlsruhe, Darmstadt, Dresden, Berlin, Louvre,
Windsor Castle, Vienna Mus.
S.VXON School — Cranach, Bamberg Cathedral and Gallery, Munich,
Vienna, Dresden, Berlin, Stuttgart, Cassel ; Cranach the Younger,
Stadtkirche Wittenberg, Leipsie, Vienna, Nuremberg Mus.
SEVENTEENTH- AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PAINTERS: Rot-
tenhammer, Li.mvre, Berlin, Munich, Schliessheim, Vienna, Kunsllialle
Hamburg; Elzheimer, Stadel, Brunswick, Louvre, Munich, Berlin,
L'res.lcn ; Denner, Kunsthalle Hamburg, Berlin, Brunswick, Dresden,
A'ienna, Munich ; Mengs, Madrid, Vienna, Dresden, Munich, St.
Petersburg; Angelica Kauffman, Vienna, Hermitage, Turin, Dresden,
Nat. Gal. Lon., Phila. ,\cail.
NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTERS : Overbeck, frescos in S.
Maria degli Angeli Assisi, Villa Massimo Rome, Carlsruhe, New Pina-
cotliek, Munich, Stadel Mus., Dusseldorf ; Cornelius, frescos Cily])-
tothek and Ludwigkirche Munich, Casa Zuccaro Rome, Royal Cem-
etery Berlin ; Veil, frescos Villa Bartholdi Rome, Stadel, Nat. Gal.
Berlin ; Schadow, Nat. Gal. Berlin, Antwerp, Stadel, Munich Mus.,
frescos Villa Bartholdi Rome ; Schnorr, Dresden, Cologne, Carls-
ruhe, New Pinacothek Munich, Stadel Mus. ; Kaulbach, wall paint-
ings Berlin Mus., Racrynski Oral. Berlin, New Pinacothek Munich, Stutt-
gart, Phila. Acad. ; Piloty, best pictures in the New Pinacothek and
Maximilianeum Munich, Nat. Gal. Berlin; Menzel, Nat. Ciah, Rac-
zynski Mus. Berlin, Breslau Mus. ; Lenbach, Nat. Gal. Berlin, New
240 HISTORY OF TAINTING.
Pinacothek Munich, Kunsthalle Ilamhurg, Zurich Gal.; Uhde, Leipsic
Mus. ; Leibl, Dresden Mus. The contemporary paintings have not as
yet found their way, to any extent, into public museums, but may be seen
in the expositions at Berlin and Munich from year to year. Makart has
one work in the Metropolitan Mus., N. Y., as has also Munkacsy ; other
works Ijy them and by Bocklin may be seen in the Nat. Gal. Berlin.
CHAPTER XIX.
BRITISH PAINTING.
BiXiK> Recommendf.ii ; Armstrong, Sir Henry Raeburn ;
.Armstrong, Gainsborough ; Armstrong, Sir Josliiia Reynolds ;
llurton. Catalogue of Pictures in National Gallery ; Ches-
neau, La Peintuir Anglaise ; Cook, Art in England ; Cun-
ningham, Lives of the most Eminent British Artists ; Dobson,
Life of Hogarth; Gilchrist, Life of Etty ; (jilchrist. Life of
Blake ; Hamerton, Life of Turner ; Hunt, The Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood i^Contemporarx Lieview, Vol. 4g) ; Leslie, Sir
Joshua Reynolds; Leslie, Life of Constable; Martin and
Xewberv, Glasgoio School of Painting ; Monkhouse, British
Contcinpora?y Artists ; Redgrave, Dictionary of Artists of
the English School ; Romney, Life of George Romney; Ros-
setti, Fine Art, chiefly Contemporary ; Ruskin, Pre-Raphacl-
itism : Ruskin, Art of England ; Sandby, History of Royal
Academy of Arts ; William Bell Scott, Autobiography ; Scott,
British Landscape Painters ; Ste])hens, Catalogue of Prints and
Draii'ings in the British Muscu/n ; Swinburne, William Blake;
Temple, Painting in the Queen's Reign ; Van Dyke, Old Eng-
lish Masters ; ^\'edmore. Studies in English Art ; \\'ilmot-
Buxton, English Painters ; Wright, LJfe of Richard IVilson.
BRITISH PAINTING: It may be premised in a general
way, that the British painters have never possessed the
pictorial cast of mind in the sense that the Italians, the
French, or the Dutch have possessed it. Painting, as a
purely pictorial arrangement of line and color, has been
somewhat foreign to their conception. Whether this fail-
ure to appreciate painting as painting is the result of geo-
graphical position, isolation, race temperament, or mental
disposition, would be hard to determine. It is quite cer-
i6
242
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
tain that from time immemorable the English people have
not been lacking in the appreciation of beauty ; but beauty
has appealed to them, not so much through the eye in
painting and sculpture, as through the ear in poetry and
literature. They have been thinkers, reasoners, moralists,
rather than observers and artists in color. Images have
FIG. 94. — HOG.\RTH. SHORTLY AFTER MARRIAGE. NAT. GAL. LONDON.
been brought to their minds by words rather than by
forms. English poetry has existed since the days of Ar-
thur and the Round 'fable, but English painting is of com-
paratively modern origin, and it is not wonderful that the
original leaning of the people toward literature and its sen-
timent should find its way into pictorial representation. As
a result one may say in a very general way that English
painting is more illustrative than creative. It endeavors
to record things that might be more pertinently and com-
I'.RTTISir PAINTING. 243
pletcly tokl in poetry, romance, or history. 'I'hc coiucp-
tion of iaryc art — creative work of the Rnbcns-'I'itian type —
has not been given to the iMighsh painters, save in excep-
tional eases. lluir success has l)een in portraiture and
lanilseape, and this lartjely liy reason of followiuj^ the model.
EARLY PAINTING; I'he earhest decorative art appeared
in Ireland. It was probably lirsl planted there i)y mis-
sionaries from Italv, and it readied its heii;'ht in the seventh
eenturv. In the ninth and tenth centuries missal illumina-
tion of a Hvzantine cast, with local modifications, beu;an to
show. This lasted, in a feeble way, until the fifteenth cen-
tury, when work of a Flemish and French nature took its
place. In the .Mitldle .\g"es there were \vall paintings and
church decorations in England, as elsewhere in iMirope, but
these have now perished, except some fragments in Kemp-
lev Church, (iloucestershire, and Chaldon Church, .Surrey.
Fhese are supposed to date back to the twelfth century,
and there are some remains of painting in Westminster
-\bbey that are said to be of thirteenth- and fourteenth-cen-
tury origin. From the fifteenth to the eighteenth century
the English people depended largely upon foreign painters
who came and lived in England. Mabuse, Moro, Hol-
bein, Rubens, Van Dyck, Lely, I-Cneller — all were there at
difl'erent times, in the service of royalty, and influencing
such local English painters as then lived. The outcome of
missal illumination and Holbein's example produced in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a local school of minia-
ture-painters of much interest, but painting proper did not
begin to rise in England until the beginning of the eigh-
teenth century — that century so dead in art over all the rest
of Europe.
FIGURE AND POKTEAIT PAINTEES : Aside from a few in-
c(jnsequential precursors the first English artist of note
was Hogarth (1697-1764). He wasan illustrator, a moralist,
and a satirist as well as a painter. To point a moral upon
244
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
canvas by depicting the vices of his time was his avowed
aim, but in doing so he did not lose sight of pictorial
beauty. Charm of color, the painter's taste in arrangement,
light, air, setting, were his in a remarkable degree. He was
not successful in large compositions, but in small pictures
like those of the Rake's Progress he was excellent. An
early man, a rigid stickler for the representation, a keen
observer of physiognomy, a satirist with a sense of the ab-
surd, he was often warped in his art by the necessities of
his subject and was sometimes hard and dry in method ,
but in his best work
he was quite a per-
fect painter. He
was the first of the
English school, and
perhaps the most
original of that
school. This is
quite as true of his
technic as of his
point of view. Both
w ere of his own
creation. His sub-
jects have been
talked about a great
deal in the past ; but
his painting is not
to this day valued
as it should be.
'J'he next man to
be mentioned, one
of the most consid-
erable of all the English school, is Sir Joshua Reynolds
(1723-1792). He was a pupil of Hudson, but owed his art
to many sources. Besides the influence of Van Dyck he
RE^■NOLDS. COL'NTESS SPENCER AN'D
ALTHORP.
lilUTISU I'AlNTlNt;. 245
was for some years in Italy, a diligent student of llie great
Italians, espeeially the Venetians, Correggio, and the l!o-
lognese Kcleetics. Sn- Joshua was inclined to be eeleclic
hinisell, and Ironi Italy he hroughl bai k a formula of art
which, modihed by his own individuality, answered him for
the rest of his life, lie was not a man of very hjfty
imagination or great invention. A few figure-pieces, after
the Titian initiative, came from his studio, but his repu-
tatit>n rests upon his many portraits. In portraiture he
was often beyond criticism, giving the realistic represen-
tation with dignity, an elevated spirit, and a suave brush.
Even here he was more impressive by his broad truth of
facts than by his artistic feeling. He was not a painter who
could do things enthusiastically or excite enthusiasm in the
spectator. There was too much of rule and precedent, too
much regard for the traditions, for him to do anything
strikingly original. His brush work and composition were
more learned than individual, and his color, though usually
good, was oftentimes conventional in contrasts. Taking
him for all in all he was a very cultivated painter, a man to
be respected and admired, but he had not quite the original
spirit that we meet with in Gainsborough.
Reynolds was well-grounded in Venetian color, Bolognese
composition, Parmese light-and-shade, and paid them the
homage of assimilation; but if Gainsborough (1727-1788)
had such school knowledge he positively disregarded it.
He disliked all conventionalities and formulas. With a
natural taste for form and color, and with a large decora-
tive sense, he went directly to nature, and took from her
the materials which he fashioned into art after his own
peculiar manner. His celebrated Blue Boy was his protest
against the conventional rule of Reynolds that a composi-
tion should be warm in color and light. All through his
work we meet with departures from academic ways. By
dint of native force and grace he made rules unto himself,
246
IIISTOKV OF TAINTING.
Some of them were not entirely successful, and in drawing
he might have profited by school training ; but he was of
a peculiar poetic temperament, with a dash of melancholy
about him, and preferred
to work in his own way.
Ill portraiture his color
was rather cold ; inland-
scape much warmer.
His brush-work was as
odd as himself, but usu-
ally effective, and his
accessories in figure-
painting were little more
than decorative after-
thoughts. Both in por-
traiture and landscape
he was one of the most
original and most Eng-
lish of all the English
painters — a man not yet
entirely appreciated,
though from the first
ranked among the fore-
most in English art.
Romney (i 734-1S02), a pupil of Steele, was often quite
as masterful a portrait-painter as either Reynolds or Gains-
borough. He was never an artist elaborate in composi-
tion, and his best works are bust-portraits with a plain
background. These he did with much dash and vivacity
of manner. His women, particularly, are fine in life-like
pose and winsomeness of mood. He was a very cunning
observer, and knew how to arrange for grace of line and
charm of color.
After Romney came Beechey (1753-1839), Raeburn (1756-
1S23), Opie (1761-1.S07), and John Hoppner (1759-1810).
FIG, 96. — GAINSEOROUGK. BLL b, hdV.
ItKITISII PAINTINC. 24/
'I'licn followcnl Lawrence (i 769-iSjo), a mixture of vi\a-
cuuis style and rather inerelrieiuus inetlnnl. lie was the
most celebrated painter of his lime, lars^ely because he
|KiiiUeil not)ilitv to look more noble ami i;i"aee to look more
i;raeious. I'oiul of line tNpes, t^armeiits, draperies, colors, lie
\\\is alua\'S seekinj;" the sparkling' rather than the true, and
forcing artil'icial ellects tor the sake of startling one rather
than stating facts sim|ily and frankly. He was facile with
the lirnsh, clever in line and color, brilliant to the last de-
gree, but lacking in that simplicity of view and method which
marks the great mind. His composition was rather fine
in its decorative effect, and, though his lights were often
faulty when compared with nature, they were no less telling
from the stand-point of picture-making. He is much ad-
nured by artists to-day, and, as a technician, he certainly
had more than average ability. He was hardly an artist
like Kevnolds or Ciainsborough, but among the mediocre
[ximters of his day he shone like a star. It is not worth
while to say much about his contemporaries. Etty (1787-
1S49) was one of the best of the figure men, but his Greek
types and classic aspirations grow wearisome on accjuaint-
ance ; and Sir Charles Eastlake (i 793-1865), though a
learned man in art and doing great service to painting as a
writer, never was a painter of importance.
"William Blake (1757-1827) was hardly a painter at all,
though he drew and colored the strange figures of his
fancy and cannot be passed over in any history of English
art. He was perhaps the most imaginative artist of Eng-
lish birth, though that imagination was often disordered
and almost incoherent. He was not a correct draughts-
man, a man with no great color-sense, and a workman
without technical training ; and yet, in spite of all this, he
drew some figures that are almost sublime in their sweep of
power. His decorative sense in filling space with lines is
well shown in his illustrations to the Book of Job. In grace
248 HISTORY OF PAINTING,
of form and feeling of motion he was excellent. Weird and
uncanny in thought, delving into the unknown, he opened
a world of mystery, peopled with a strange Apocalyptic race,
whose writhing, flowing bodies are the epitome of graceful
grandeur.
GENRE-PAINTEES; From Blake to Morland (1763-1S04) is
FIG. 97. — CO.NSTABI.E. CORN FIELD. NAT. GAL. LONDON.
a step across space from heaven to earth. Morland was a
realist of English country life, horses at tavern-doors,
cattle, pigs. His life was not the most correct, but his art
in truthfulness of representation, simplicity of painting,
richness of color and light, was often of a fine quality. As
a skilful technician he stood ciuite alone in his time, and
seemed to show more affinity with the Dutch _i^!?«/-(?-painters
liRITISII I'AINTINC;. 249
than his cnvii ciuinlrvmcn. II is winks .-u'c much prized
ln-ihi\', aiul were sii during' the [laiuter's life.
Sir David Wilkie (17S5-1S41) was alsd somewhat like the
Ituteh in suhjeet, .i,!,'(V//-(-painter, fond (jf the village fete and
de[iieting it with careful iletail, a limpid brush, and good te\t-
nral ellects. In 1S25 he tra\elletl abroad, was gone some
years, was inipresseil by ^'elasclut■z, Correggio, and Rem-
brandt, and completely changed his style. He then became
a portrait and historical painter. He never outlived the ner-
vous constraint that shows in all his pictures, and his brush,
though facile within limits, was never free or bold as com-
pared with a Dutchman like Steen. In technical methods
Landseer (i 802-1 873), the painter of animals, was somewhat
like him. That is to say, they both had a method of painting
surfaces and rendering textures that was more " smart " than
powerful. There is little solidity or depth to the brush-
work of either, though both are impressive to the spectator
at first sight. Landseer knew the habits and the anatomy
of animals very well, but he never had an appreciation of the
brute in the animal, such as we see in the pictures of Velas-
quez or the bronzes of Barye. The Landseer animal has too
much sentiment about it. The dogs, for instance, are gener-
ally given those emotions pertinent to humanity, and which
are only e.xceptionally true of the canine race. This very
feature — the tendency to humanize the brute and make it
lcU a story — accounts in large measure for the popularity of
Landseer's art. The work is perhaps correct enough, but the
aim of it is somewhat afield from pure painting. It illus-
trates the literary rather than the pictorial. Following Wil-
kie the most distinguished painter was Mulready (17S6-1863),
whose pictures of village boys are well known through en-
gravings.
THE LANDSCAPE PAINTEES: In landscape the English
have had something to say peculiarly their own. It has
not always been well said, the coloring is often hot, the
2 50
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
brush-work brittle, the attention to detail inconsistent with
the large view of nature, yet such as it is it shows the Eng-
lish point of view and is valuable on that account. Richard
Wilson (i 7 I 3-1 782) was the first landscapist of importance,
though he was not so English in view as some others to fol-
low. In fact, Wilson was nurtured on Claude Lorrain and
Joseph Vernet and instead of painting the realistic English
landscape he painted the pseudo-Italian landscape. He be-
gan working in portraiture under the tutorship of Wright,
and achieved some success in this department ; but in i 749
he went to Italy and devoted himself wholly to landscapes.
These were of the classic type and somewhat conventional.
The composition was usually a dark foreground with trees
Flij. 98.— TLKNEK. KIGHTING TfiMfiEAIRE. NAT. GAL. LONDON.
or buildings to right and left, an opening in the middle
distance leading into the background, and a broad expanse
of sunset sky. In the foreground he usually introduced a
r.Ki'i'isii I'AiN'i'iNi;. 251
few figures for ronianlir or classic association. Consider-
able elevation of theme aiul spirit marks most of his pictures.
There was g'ootl workmanship about the skies and the Ii;,dit,
and an attentixe study of nature was shown throughout.
His ean\'ases dul not nu'el with nuieh success at the time
thev were painted. In more modern da\s Wilson has been
rankeil as the true founder of huidscape in l-aigland. and one
of the most sincere of Kngiish iiainters.
THE NORWICH SCHOOL: Old Crome (1769-1821), though in-
fluenced to some extent by Wilson and the Dutch painters,
was an original talent, i)ainting English scenery with much
simplicity and considerable power. He was sometimes rasp-
ing with his brush, and had a small method of recording de-
tails combined with mannerisms of drawing and composition,
and yet gave an out-of-doors feeling in light and air that was
astonishing. His large trees have truth of mass and accuracy
of drawing, and his foregrounds are painted with solidity.
He was a keen student of nature, and drew about him a num-
ber of landscape painters at Norwich, who formed the Nor-
wich School. Crome was its leader, and the school made its
influence felt upon English landscape painting. Cotman
( I 782-1842) was the best painter of the group after Crome,
a man who depicted landscape and harbor scenes in a style
that recalls Girtin and Turner.
The most complete, full-rounded landscaj^ist in England
was John Constable (1776-1837). His foreign bias, such as
it was, came from a study of the Dutch masters. There
were two sources from which the F-nglish landscapists drew.
Those who were inclined to the ideal, men like Wilson,
Calcott (1779-1844), and Turner, drew from the Italian of
Poussin and Claude ; those who were content to do nature
in her real dress, men like Cainsborough and Constable,
drew from the Dutch of Hobbema and his contemporaries.
A certain sombreness of color and manner of composition
show in Constable that may be attributed to Holland ; but
?S2
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
these were slight features as compared with the originality
of the man. He was a close student of nature who painted
what he saw in English country life,
especially about Hampstead, and paint-
ed it with a knowledge and an artistic
sensitiveness never surpassed in Eng-
land. The rural feeling was strong
with him, and his evident pleasure in
simple scenes is readily communica-
ted to the spectator. There is no at-
tempt at the grand or the heroic. He
never cared much for mountains or
water, but was fond of cultivated up-
lands, trees, bowling clouds, and torn
skies. Bursts of sunlight, storms, at-
mospheres, all pleased him. \Vith de-
tail he was little concerned. He saw
landscape in large patches of form and
color, and so painted it. His handling
was broad and solid, and at times a lit-
tle heavy. His light was often forced
by sharp contrast with shadows, and
often his pictures appear spotty from
isolated glitters of light strewn here
and there. In color he helped eliminate the brown land-
scape and substituted in its place the green and blue of
nature. In atmosphere he was excellent. His influence
upon English art was impressive, and in 1824 the ex-
hibition at Paris of his Hay Wain, together with some
work by Bonington and Fielding had a decided effect upon
the then rising landscape school of France. The F'rench
realized that nature lay at the bottom of Constable's art, and
they profited, not by imitating Constable, but by studying
his nature model.
Bonington (1S01-1S2S) died young, and though of English
I lU. 95. — P.I RNE-JOM
II.AMMA \"E;srAi,[s
I'.KITISII I'AIN'l'INC. 253
parents his traiiiiiij^r was essentially Ireni li, and he really
belonged tn the hreiuh seluKil, an assoi iatt' iil 1 )elaeroix.
His study of the X'enelians turned his talent toward wami
eoloring, in whieh he exeelled. In landsra|)e liis broad
handhni^ was somewhat related to that (jf Constable, and
from the faet of their works appearing' together in the Salon
of i.S:;4 they are often spoken of as influeneers of the mod-
ern I'reneh landseape painters.
Turner (i775-i!^5i) is the best known name in English
art. His celebrity is somewhat disproportionate to his real
merits, though it is impossible to deny his great abilit)'. He
was a man learned in all the forms of nature and sciiO(jled in
all the formulas of art ; yet he was not a profound lover of
nature nor a faithful recorder of what things he saw in nat-
ure, except in his early days. In the bulk of his work he
shows the traditions of Claude, with additions of his own.
His taste was classic (he possessed all the knowledge and
the belongings of the historical landscape), and he delighted
in great stretches of country broken by sea-shores, rivers,
high mountains, fine buildings, and illumined by blazing
sunlight and gorgeous skies. His composition was at times
grotesque in imagination ; his light was usually bewildering
in intensity and often unrelieved by shadows of sufficient
depth ; his tone was sometimes faulty ; and in color he was
not always harmonious, but inclined to be capricious, un-
even, showing fondness for arbitrary schemes of color. The
object of his work seems to have been to dazzle, to impress
with a wilderness of lines and hues, to overawe by imposing
scale and grandeur. His paintings are impressive, decora-
tively splendid, but they often smack of the stage, and are
more frequently grandiloquent than grand. His early works,
especially in water-colors, where he shows himself a follower
of Girtin, are much better than his later canvases in oil,
many of which have changed color. The water-colors are
carefully done, subdued in color, and true in light. From
254 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
1802, or thereabouts, to 1830 was his second period, in
which Italian composition and much color were used. The
last twenty years of his life he inclined to the bizarre, and
turned his canvases into almost incoherent color masses.
He had an artistic feeling for composition, linear perspec-
tive, and the sweep of horizon lines ; skies and hills he knew
and'drew with power ; color he comprehended only as deco-
ration ; and light he distorted for effect. Yet with all his
shortcomings Turner was an artist to be respected and ad-
mired. He knew his craft, in fact, knew it so well that he
relied too much on artificial effects, drew away from the
model of nature, and finally passed into the extravagant.
THE WATER-COLOKISTS : About the beginning of this cen-
tury a school of water-colorists, founded originally by Cozens
(i 752-1799) and Girtin (i 775-1 802), came into prominence
and developed English art in a new direction. It began
to show with a new force the transparency of skies, the
luminosity of shadows, the delicacy and grace of clouds,
the brilliancy of light and color. Cozens and Blake were
primitives in the use of the medium, but Stothard (1755-
1834) employed it with much sentiment, charm, and /A7V/-(r2V
effect. Turner was quite a master of it, and his most per-
manent work was done with it. Later on, when he rather
abandoned form to follow color, he also abandoned water-
color for oils. Fielding (1787-1849) used water-color
effectively in giving large feeling for space and air, and also
for fogs and mists ; Prout ( i 783-1 852) employed it in ar-
chitectural drawings of the principal cathedrals of Europe ;
and Cox (1783-1859), Dewint (i 784-1 849), Hunt (1790-
1864), Cattermole ( 1 800-1 868), Lewis (1805-1876), men
whose names only can be mentioned, all won recognition
with this medium. Water-color drawing is to-day said to
be a department of art that expresses the English pictorial
feeling better than any other, though this is not an undis-
puted statement.
likiriSH I'AINTINC.
255
Perliaps the most iiii|iort.iiit ni()\'rnKMit in I'ju^lisli paint-
ing of recent tinirs was tliat wliieli toolv tlie name ni
PRK-RAPHAELITISM : It was starleil al)()Ut [S47, prnnariiy
by Rossetti (1S2S-1882), Holman Hunt (i.'^-^y j, and Sir John
Millais ([Sj9-i8()0), assoeialetl witli sexeral sciilploi's and
poets, seven in all. It was an enudalion of tlic siiieeriiy,
ION. HELEN OF TROV.
the loving care, and the scru|oulous exactness in truth that
characterized the Italian painters before Raphael. Its advo-
cates, including Mr. Ruskin the critic, maintained that
after Raphael came that fatal facility m art which seeking-
grace of composition lost truth of fact, and that the proper
course for modern painters was to return to the sincerity
and veracity of the early masters. Hence the name pre-Ra-
256 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
phaelitism, and the signatures on their early pictures, P. R.
B., pre-Raphaelite Brother. To this attempt to gain the
true regardless of the sensuous, was added a morbidity of
thought mingled with mysticism, a moral and religious pose,
and a studied simplicity. Some of the painters of the
Brotherhood went even so far as following the habits of the
early Italians, seeking retirement from the world and carry-
ing wiih them a Gothic earnestness of air. There is no
doubt about the sincerity that entered into this movement.
It was an honest effort to gain the true, the good, and as a
result, the beautiful ; but it was no less a striven-after hon-
esty and an imitated earnestness. The Brotherhood did
not last for long, the members drifted from each other and
began to paint each after his own style, and pre-Raphaelitism
passed away as it had arisen, though not without leaving
a powerful stamp on English art, especially in decoration.
Rossetti, an Italian by birth though English by adop-
tion, was the type of the Brotherhood. He was more of a
poet than a painter, took most of his subjects from Dante,
and painted as he wrote, in a mystical romantic spirit. He
was always of a retiring disposition and never exhibited
publicly after he was twenty-eight years of age. As a
draughtsman he was awkward in line and not always true in
modelling. In color he was superior to his associates and
had considerable decorative feeling. The shortcoming of
his art, as with that of the others of the Brotherhood, was
that in seeking truth of detail he lost truth of ensemble. This
is perhaps better exemplified in the works of Holman Hunt.
He has spent infinite pains in getting the truth of detail in
his pictures, has travelled in the East and painted types, cos-
tumes, and scenery in Palestine to gain the historic truths
of his Scriptural scenes ; but all that he has produced has
been little more than a survey, a report, a record of the facts.
He has not made a picture. The insistence upon every de-
tail has isolated all the facts and left them isolated in the
BRITISH PAINTING. 257
picture. In seeking the minute truths he has overhjoked
the great truths of light, air, anil setting. His cijlor has
always been crude, his values or relations not well pre-
served, and his brush-work hard and tortureil.
Millais slioweil some of this disjointed effect in his early
work when lie was a member of tile ISrotherhood. ffe did
not hold to his early convictions however, and soon aban-
doned the pre-Rapliaelite methods for a more conventional
stvle. He has painted some remarkable portraits and some
excellent figure [lieces, and to-day holds high rank in English
art ; but he is an uneven painter, often doing weak, harshly-
colorei! work. Moreover, the English tendency to tell stories
with the paint-brush finds in Millais a faithful upholder. At
his best he is a strong painter.
Madox Brown (1821-1893) never joined the Brotherhood,
though his leaning was toward its principles. He had con-
siik-rable dramatic power, with which he illustrated historic
scenes, and ann)ng contemporary artists stood well. 'I'he
most decided influence of pre-Raphaelitism shows in Burne-
Jones (1S33 — ), a pupil of Rossetti, and perhaps the most
original painter now living* of the English school. From
Rossetti he got mysticism, sentiment, poetry, and from
association with Swinburne and William Morris, the poets,
something of the literary in art, which he has put forth with
artistic effect. He has not followed the Brotherhood in its
pursuit of absolute truth of fact, but has used facts for deco-
rative effect in line and color. His ability to fill a given
space gracefully, shows with fine results in his pictures, as
in his stained-glass designs. He is a good draughtsman and
a rather rich colorist, but in brush-work somewhat labored,
stippled, and unique in dryness. He is a man of much imag-
ination, and his conceptions, though illustrative of litera-
ture, do not suffer thereby, because his treatment does not
sacrifice the artistic. He has been the butt of consider-
able shallow laughter from time to time, like many another
* Died 1893.
17
258
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
man of power. Albert Moore (1840-1893), a graceful painter
of a decorative ideal type, ratlier follows the Rossetti-Burne-
Jones example, and is an illustration of the influence of
pre-Raphaelitism.
OTHER FIGURE AND PORTRAIT PAINTERS: Among the con-
temporary painters Sir Frederick Leighton (1830-1S96),
President of the Royal Academy, is ranked as a fine aca-
demic draughtsman, but not a man with the color-sense or
the brushman's quality in his work. Watts (1818-) is per-
haps an inferior technician, and in color is often sombre and
dirty ; but he is a man of much
imagination, occasionally rises to
grandeur in conception, and has
painted some superb portraits,
notably the one of Walter Crane.
Orchardson (1835-) is more of a
painter, pure and simple, than any
of his contemporaries, and is a
knowing if somewhat mannered
colorist. Erskine Nicol (1825-),
Faed* (1S26-), Calderon (1S33-),
Boughton (1834-), Frederick
Walker (i 840-1 875), Stanhope
Forbes, Stott of Oldham and in
portraiture Holl (1S45-1890) and
Herkomer may be mentioned.
LANDSCAPE AND MARINE PAINT-
ERS: In the department of land-
scape there are many painters in
England of contemporary impor-
tance. Vicat Cole (1833-1893) had
considerable exaggerated reputa-
tion as a depicter of sunsets and twilights ; Cecil Lawson
(1S51-1882) gave promise of great accomplishment, and
lived long enough to do some excellent work in the style
* Died I goo.
FIG. lOI.-
I.O\'R ANn
RKITTSM PAINTING. 259
of the Frencli Roussrau, niiiiylcd with an iiifliuncf fioiii
C'lainsboriHiyh ; Alfred Parsons is a httle hard and precise
in lus work, hut one of the l)est of the living men ; and
W. L. Wyllie is a painter of more than average merit. In
marines Hook (1S19-) belongs to the older school, and is
not entirely satisfactory. 'I'he most modern anti the best
sea-painter in England is Henry Moore (1S31-1S95), a man
who paints well and gives the large feeling of the ocean
with tine color qualities.
MODERN SCOTCH SCHOOL: There is at the present time a
School of art in Scotland that seems to have little or no
aftinilv with the contemporary school of England. Its
painters are more akin to the Dutch and the ]''rench, and in
their coloring resemble, in depth and quality, the work of
Delacroix. Much of their art is far enough removed from
the actual appearance of nature, but it is strong in the sen-
timent of color and in decorative effect. The school is
represented by such men as James Guthrie, E. A. Walton,
James Hamilton, George Henry, E. A. Hornell, Lavery, Mel-
ville, Crawhall, Roche, Lawson, McBride, Morton, Reid-Mur-
ray, Spence, Paterson.
PKINCIPAL WORKS: Knglish art cannot be seen to advantage, out-
side of England. In the Metropolitan Museum, N. Y., and in private
collections like that of Mr. William H. Fuller in New York,* there are
some good examples of the older men — Reynolds, Constable, Gains-
borough, and their contemporaries. In the Louvre there aie sonie indif-
ferent Constables and some goorl Boningtons. In England the liesl collec-
tion is in the Naticjnal Gallery. Ne.xt to this the Soulh Kensington
Museum for Constable sketches. Elsewhere the Glasgow, Edinburgh,
Liverpool, Windsor galleries, and llie jirivate collccii<ins of the late Sir
Richard Wallace, the Duke of Westminster, and others. Turner is well
represented in the National Gallery, though his oils have suffered througli
time and the use of fugitive pigments. For the living men, their work
may be seen in the yearly exhibitions at the Royal Academy and elsewhere.
There are comparatively few English pictures in America.
* Dispersed, iSy/6.
CHAPTER XX.
AMERICAN PAINTING.
Books Recommended: Amerkan Art RcvicKi ; The Art
Review ; Benjamin, Contemporary Art in America ; Ce/itiiry
Magazine ; Clement and Hutton, Artists of the Nineteenth
Century ; Cummings, Historic Annals of the National Academy
of Design; Downes, Boston Painters (in Atlantic Monthly Vol.
62) ; Dunlap, Arts of Design in United States ; Flagg, Life and
Letters of Washington Alls to n ; Gait, Life of 1 1 'est.- Knowl-
ton, IV. Af. Hunt; Lester, The Artists of America ; Mason,
Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart : Perkins, Copley ; Scribncr's
Magazine ; ^h(t\don, American Painters ; Tuckerman, Book of
the Artists ; Van Dyke, Art for Art's Sake ; Van Rens-
selaer, Six Portraits ; Ware, Lectures on Allston ; White, A
Sketch of Chester A. Liar ding.
AMERICAN ART: It is hardly possible to predicate much
about the environment as it affects art in America. The
result of the climate, the teinperament, and the mixture of
nations in the production or non-production of painting in
America cannot be accurately computed at this early stage
of history. One thing only is certain, and that is, that the
building of a new commonwealth out of primeval nature does
not call for the production of art in the early periods of de-
velopment. The first centuries in the history of America
were devoted to securing the necessities of life, the ener-
gies of the time were of a practical nature, and art as an
indigenous product was hardly known.
After the Revolution, and indeed before it, a hybrid
portraiture, largely borrowed from England, began to appear,
and after 1825 there was an attempt at landscape painting;
AMERICAN PAINTING.
261
but paiiititig as an art worlliy of very serious considera-
tion, came in only witli the siuUlen i;rowlli in vvealtli and
taste following the War of the Reliellion aiul the Centennial
Exhibition of 1S76. 'I'he best of American art dates from
about 187S, though during the earlier years there were
painters of note who cannot be passed over unmentioned.
THE EAKLY PAINTERS: The "limner," or the man who
could draw and color a portrait, seems to have existed very
early in American history. Smibert (1684-1757), a Scotch
painter, who settled in lloston, and Watson (1685 ?-i768),
another Scotchman, wiio settled in New Jersey, were of this
class — men capable of giving a likeness, but little more.
They were followed by English painters of even less conse-
quence. Then came Copley (1737-1815) and West (173S-
1820), with whom painting in America really began. They
were good men for their time, but it inust be borne in mind
that the times for art were not at all favorable. AVest was
a man about whom all the infant prodigy tales have been
told, but he never grew to be a
great artist. He was ambitious
beyond his power, indulged in
theatrical composition, was hot
in color, and never was at ease
in handling the brush. Most of
his life was passed in England,
where he had a vogue, was elect-
ed President of the Royal Acad-
emy, and became practically a
British painter. Copley was
more of an American than West,
and more of a painter. Some
of his portraits are exceptionally fine, and his figure pieces,
like Charles I. demanding the Five Members of House of Com-
mons are excellent in color and composition. C. W. Peale
(i 741-1827), a pupU of both Copley and West, was perhaps
102. — WEb'I. F'fiTKF^ 1>KN\1.NU
CHRIST. HAMi'TOiN CT.
262 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
more fortunate in having celebrated characters hke Wash-
ington for sitters than in his art, Trumbull (1756-1843)
preserved on canvas the Revolutionary history of America
and, all told, did it
very well. Some of
his compositions,
portraits, and min-
iature heads in the
Yale .-Vrt School at
New Haven are
drawn and painted
in a masterful man-
ner and are as valu-
able for their art as
for the incidents
which they portray.
Gilbert Stuart
(1755-1828) was
the best portrait-
painter of all the
early men, and his
work holds very
high rank even in
the schools of to-
day. He was one
of the first in American art-history to show skilful accuracy of
the brush, a good knowledge of color, and some artistic sense
of dignity and carriage in the sitter. He was not always a
good draughtsman, and he had a manner of laying on pure
colors without blending them that sometimes produced
sharpness in modelling; but as a general rule he painted a
portrait with force and with truth. He was a pupil of Alex-
ander, a Scotchman, and afterward an assistant to West.
He settled in Boston, and during his life painted most of the
great men of his time, including Washington.
FIG, 103, — CII.BF.KI
STIIAKT. WASHINGTON ( f N Kl N ISHED).
BOSTON Ml.'S.
A.MKKICAN I'AIN TINC,
263
Vailderlyn (1 776-1 85 2) met wllli adversity all liis I iff Imii;,
aiul perhaps never cxpi"cssci.l himself lully. lie w.is a piipil
of Stuart, studied in Paris and Italy, and his assoi i.itions
with Aaron Btirr made him ciuite as famous as his pictures.
Washington AUston (I 779-1 84 ;) was a p<iinter whom the
llostonians ha\'e r.mkecl higii in their art-history, but he
harilU' deserved such |)osition. I ntellecttially he was a man
of loftv and poetic aspirations, but as an artist he never had
tlie painter's sense or the |)ainter's skill. 1 le was an aspira-
tuui rather tlian a consmnmation. Me chei'ished notions
alinnt ideals, dealt in
iniai^mative allego-
ries, and failed to ob-
serve the pictorial
c h a r a c t e r of the
World about him. As
a result of this, and
poor artistic triiining,
his art had too little
basis on nature,
though it was very
often satisfactory as
decoration. Rem-
brandt Peak (1787-
1860), like his father,
was a painter of Wash-
ington portraits of me-
diocre quality. Jarvis
(i 780-1834) and Sul-
ly (' 7 ■''.3- 1 87 2) were
both British born, but
their work belongs
here in .\merica, where most of their days were spent. Sully
could paint a very good portrait occasionally, though he al-
ways inclined toward the weak and the sentimental, especially
-W. I\t. HUNT. LUTE rL.A\t'
264 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
in his portraits of women. Leslie (i 794-1 S59) and Newton
(' 795- ' S35) were Americans, but, hkii West and Copley, tliey
belong in their art more to England than to America. In all
the early American painting the British influence may be
traced, with sometimes an inclination to follow Italy in large
compositions.
THE MIDDLE PERIOD in American art dates from 1825
to about 1878. During that time, something distinctly
American began to appear in the landscape work of Doughty
(1793-1S56) and Thomas Cole (1801-1848). Both men were
substantially self-taught, though Cole received some instruc-
tion from a portrait-painter named Stein. Cole during his
life was famous for his Hudson River landscapes, and for
two series of pictures called The Voyage of Life and The
Course of Empire. The latter were really epic jiocms upon
canvas, done with much blare of color and literary explana-
tion in the title. His best work was in pure landscape,
which he pictured with considerable accuracy in drawing,
though it was faulty in lighting and gaudy in coloring. Brill-
iant autumn scenes were his favorite subjects. His work
had the merit of originality and, moreover, it must be re-
membered that Cole was one of the beginners in American
landscape art. Durand (1796- 1886) was an engraver until
1835, when he began painting portraits, and afterward de-
veloped landscape with considerable power. He was usu-
ally simple in subject anil realistic in treatment, with
not so much insistence upon brilliant color as some of his
contemporaries. Kensett (1 818-1872) was a follower in
landscape of the so-called Hudson River School of Cole
and others, though he studied seven years in Europe. His
color was rather warm, his air hazy, and the general effect
of his landscape that of a dreamy autumn day with poetic
suggestions. F. E. Church (1826-*) was a pupil of Cole,
and has followed him in seeking the grand and the startling
in mountain scenery. With Church should be mentioned a
* Died, ijc^.
ARrKKrcAN r.MN'TiNr;.
265
number of .11 lists— Hubbard ( i.Si 7-1 S,S,S), Hill (1S29-,) Bier-
stadt (i8;,o-),* Thomas Moran ( i.S,;7 -)— who liavc ik hieved
reputation liy eaiivases of the Roeky Mountains anil otiier
e\[iansive s c e 11 e s .
Si.)nie otiier painters
of sniailer eanvases
belong" in point of
time, a n d a I s o in
spn'it, witli the Hud-
son River lanclseap-
ists — painters, too, of
eonsiderabie ni e r 1 1 ,
as David Johnson
(iSj;-), Bristol
(1S26-), SandfordGif-
ford (i S - 3- I SSo),
McEntee(iS::S-iS9i),
and Whittredge
(1S20-), the last two
very good portrayers
of autumn scenes ; A.
H. Wyant (i S36-
1S92), one of the best
and strongest of the
American landscapists ; Bradford (i 830-1 S92) and W. T.
Richards (1833-), the marine-painters.
PORTRAIT, HISTORY, AND GENRE-PAINTERS: Contemporary
with the early landscapists were a number of figure-paint-
ers, most of them self-taught, or taught badly by foreign
or native artists, and yet men who produced creditable
work. Chester Harding (1792-1866) was one of the early
portrait-painters of this century who achieved enough celeb-
rity in Boston to be the subject of what was called "the
Harding craze." Elliott ( i 8 1 2- 1 868) was a pupil of Trum-
bull, and a man of considerable reputation, as was also In-
♦ Died, 1902.
1
1
1
y
^
i
H
^■^^js^k^^arf:.!:
1
M
1
^w
m^T-' M
ii
1
^H
H " '^^'1^1
\§^
■
^^^H
■ '^fl
m
1
r
^'
w
L-
i
m^'^it^
1
- - J
FK;. 105. — E,-\S"IM.\N jOI-INSON. ciiurn'im:
266 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
man (1S01-1S46), a portrait and _i,w/;r-painter with a
smooth, detailed brush. Page (1811-1885), Baker (1821-
1880), Huntington (1S16-), the third President of the Acad-
emy of Design ; Healy (1808-*), a portrait-painter of more
than average excellence; Mount ( 1 807-1868), one of the
earliest of American ^w/r-painters, were all men of note in
this middle period.
Leutze (1816-1S6S) was a German by birth but an Ameri-
can by adoption, who painted many large historical scenes
of the American Revolution, such as Washington Crossing
the Delaware, besides many scenes taken from European
history. He was a pupil of I.essing at Dusseldorf, and had
something to do with introducing Dusseldorf methods into
America. He was a ])ainter of ability, if at times hot in
color and dry in handling. Occasionally he did a fine por-
trait, like the Seward in the Union League Club, New York.
During this period, in addition to the influence of Dus-
seldorf and Rome upon American art, there came the in-
fluence of French art with Hicks (1823-1890) and Hunt
(1824-1879), both of them pupils of Couture at Paris, and
Hunt also of Millet at Barbizon. Hunt was the real intro-
ducer of Millet and the IJarbizon-Fontainebleau artists
to the American people. In 1855 he established himself at
jjoston, had a large number of pupils, and met with great
success as a teacher. He was a painter of ability, but
perhaps his greatest influence was as a teacher and an in-
structor in what was good art as distinguished from what
was false and meretricious. He certainly was the first
painter in America who taught catholicity of taste, truth
and sincerity in art, and art in the artist rather than in the
subject. Contemporary with Hunt lived George Fuller
(1822-1884), a unique man in American art for the senti-
ment he conveyed in his pictures by means of color and at-
mosphere. Though never proficient in the grammar of art
he managed by blendings of color to suggest certain senti-
* Died 1894.
AMKklCAN I'AIWriNC.
267
ments rei;'arcliiig' li^nlit ami aii" thai lia\'c l)i'cu ri^lill)' csUciiicd
poetic.
THE THIRD PERIOD ill AnH'i'iraii art l)c,uaii ininicdiatrl)-
aftcr ihe (.Aailtaiiiial l'',\liil)il imi at I'liiladcliihia in I1S76.
L' luKuibUaliy tlir ilispla\ of art, Ixilii forcii;!! and domestic,
at that time, toL;i.'tlicr witli llic national pros|)ciat)' and ,i;i-cat
growth ol the I nilcd Stales had nnich to tlo with stiiiudat-
ing- activity in painting. Man)' )'onng men at the begin-
I..\NUSCA1'E.
ning of this period went to Knrope to study in the studios
at Munich, and later on at Paris, llefore 18S0 some of them
had returned to the llnited States, bringing with them
knowledge of the technical siile of art, which they immedi-
ately began to give out to many pupils. (Gradually the in-
fluence of the young men from Munich and Paris spread.
l"he Art Students' League, founded in 1875, was incorporated
in 1878, and the Society of American Artists was established
in the same year. Societies and painters began to spring
up all over the country^ and as a result there is in the United
States to-day an artist body technically as well trained and
268 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
in spirit as progressive as in almost any country of Europe.
The late influence shown in painting has been largely a
French influence, and the American artists have been accused
from time to time of echoing French methods. The accu-
sation is true in part. Paris is the centre of all art-teach-
ing to-day, and the Americans, in common with the European
nations, accept French methods, not because they are
French, but because they are the best extant. In subjects
and motives, however, the American school is as original as
any school can be in this cosmopolitan age.
PORTRAIT, FIGURE, AND GENRE PAINTERS (1878-1894): It
must not be inferred that the painters now prominent in
American art are all young men schooled since 1876. On
the contrary, some of the best of them are men past middle
life who began painting long before 1876, and have by dint
of observation and prolonged study continued with the
modern spirit. For e.\ample, Winslow Homer (1836-) is
one of the strongest and most original of all the American
artists, a man who never had the advantage of the high-
est technical training, yet possesses a feeling for color, a
dash and verve in execution, an originality in subject, and
an individuality of conception that are unsurpassed. East-
man Johnson (1824-) is one of the older portrait and figure-
painters who stands among the younger generations with-
out jostling, because he has in measure kept himself informed
with modern thought and method. He is a good, conserva-
tive painter, possessed of taste, judgment, and technical
ability. Elihu Vedder (1836-) is more of a draughtsman
than a brushman. His color-sense is not acute nor his
handling free, but he has an imagination which, if somewhat
more literary than pictorial, is nevertheless very effective.
John La Farge (1835-) and Albert Ryder (1847-) are both col-
orists, and La Farge in artistic feeling is a man of much
power. Almost all of his pictures have fine decorative
quality in line and color and are thoroughly pictorial.
AMERICAN PAINTING.
269
'I'he "young men," so-called, tliotigh some (jf them arc
now on toward miiltllc life, are perhaps m(;re facile in
brush-work and better trained draughlsinen than th(jse we
have just mentioned. 'I'liey have cultivated vi\'acity of
style and cleverness in statement, freipiently at the ex-
pense (.>f the larger qualities of art. Sargent (1856-) is, ])er-
haps, the most considerable portrait-painter now living, a
man of unboumled resources technically and fme natural
abilities. He is draughtsman, colorist, brushman — in fact,
almost everything in art that can be cultivated. His taste
is not vet mature, and he is just now given to dashing
effects that are more clever than permanent ; but that he is
a master in portraiture has already been abundantly demon-
FIG. 107. — WINSLOW HOMER, UNDERTOW.
strated. Chase (1849-) is also an exceptionally good por-
trait painter, and he handles the genre subject with brilliant
color and a swift, sure brush. In brush-work he is exceed-
270 HISTORY OF PAINTING.
ingly clever, and is an excellent technician in almost every
respect. Not always profound in matter he generally man-
ages to be entertaining in method. Blum (185 7-) is well
known to magazine readers through many black-and-white
illustrations. He is also a painter of genre subjects taken
from many lands, and handles his brush with brilliancy and
force. Dewing ( 1 85 i -) is a painter with a refined sense not
only in form but in color. His pictures are usually small,
but exquisite in delicacy and decorative charm. Thayer
(i 849-) is fond of large canvases, a man of earnestness, sin-
cerity, and imagination, but not a good draughtsman, not
a good colorist, and a rather clumsy brushman. He has,
however, something to say, and in a large sense is an ar-
tist of uncommon ability. KenyoiiCox(i 856-) is a draughts-
man, with a strong command of line and taste in its arrange-
ment. He is not a strong colorist, though in recent work
he has shown a new departure in this feature that prom-
ises well. He renders the nude with power, and is fond of
the allegorical subject.
The number of good portrait-painters at present work-
ing in America is ciuite large, and mention can be made of
but a few in addition to those already spoken of — Lockwood,
McLure Hamilton, Tarbell, Beckwith, Benson, Vinton. In
figure and ^w/rc-painting the list of really good painters could
be drawn out indefinitely, and again mention must be con-
fined to -c few only, like Simmons, Shirlaw, Smedley, Brush,
Millet, Hassam, Reid, Wiles, Mowbray, Reinhart, Blashfield,
Metcalf, Low, C. Y. Turner.
Most of the men whose names are given above are resi-
dent in America; but, in addition, there is a large con-
tingent of young men, American born but resident abroad,
who can hardly be claimed by the American school, and
yet belong to it as much as to any school. They are cos-
mopolitan in their art, and reside in Paris, Munich, Lon-
don, or elsewhere, as the spirit moves them. Sargent, the
AMERICAN' rAINTlNC.
271
liortrait-paiiiter, reallv belongs to this group, as does
also Whistler (1834-*), one of the most artistic of all the
moderns. Whistler
was long' resident in
London, but has now
reniovei.1 to Paris.
He belongs to no
school, and such art
as he produces is pe-
culiarly his own, save
a leaven of intluences
from A'clasejuez and
the Japanese. His
art is the perfection
of delicacy, both in
color and in line.
Apparently very
sketchy, it is in real-
ity the maximum of
etfect with the mini-
mum of display. It
has the pictorial
charm of mystery and
suggestiveness, and
the technical effect of
light, air, and space.
There is nothing bet-
ter produced in mod-
ern painting than his
present work, and in
earlier years he
painted portraits like
that of his mother,
which are justly ranked as great art. E, A. Abbey (185 2-)
is better known by his pen-and-ink work than by his paint-
* Died, 190 ;,
-WHISTLER. WHITE GIRL.
"^ 72
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
ings, howbeit he has done good work in color. He is resi-
dent in England.
In Paris there are many American-born painters, who
really belong more with the French school than the Amer-
ican. Bridgman is an example, and Dannat, Alexander Har-
FIG. 109. — SARGENT. '* CARNATION I.TT.V, MI.V ROSE.'
rison, Hitchcock, McEwen, Melchers, Pearce, Julius Stewart,
Weeks (i 849-1 903), J. W. Alexander, "Walter Gay, Ser-
geant Kendall have nothing distinctly American about their
art. It is semi-cosmopolitan with a leaning toward French
methods. There are also some American-born painters at
Munich, like C. F. Ulrich ; Shannon is in London and Coleman
in Italy.
AMKKICAN I'AINTrNC. 273
LANDSCAPE AND MARINE PAINTERS, 1878 1894: 111 the ilc-
partiufiU o( laiulscapc Aiiicru a has had since 1.^25 somcthiiij^
distinctly national, and has at this day. In recent years the
impressionist //(7//-i7/> scliool of France has influencetl many
painters, and the prismatic lanilscape is tpiite as freqnenlly
seen in American exhibitions as in the Paris sahjns ; bnt
American landscape art rather dates ahead of French im-
pressionism. The strongest landscapist of our times, George
Inness (1825-*), is not a young man except in his artistic as-
pirations. His style has undergone many changes, yet still
remains distinctly individual. He has always been an experi-
menter and an uneven painter, at times doing work of wonder-
ful force, and then again falling into weakness. The solidity
of nature, the mass and bulk of landscape, he has shown with
a power second to none. He is fond of the sentiment of
nature's light, air, and color, and has put it forth more in his
later than in his earlier canvases. At his best, he is one of
the first of the American landscapists. Among his con-
temporaries Wyant (already mentioned), Swain Gifford,
Colman, Gay, Shurtleff, have all done excellent work un-
influenced by foreign schools of to-day. Homer Martin's f
landscapes, from their breadth of treatment, are popularly
considered rather indifferent work, but in reality the}' are
excellent in color and poetic feeling.
The "young men " again, in landscape as in the figure, are
working in the modern spirit, though in substance they are
based on the traditions of the older American landscape
sclioo.l. There has been much achievement, and there is still
greater promise in such landscapists as Tryon, Piatt, Murphy,
Dearth, Crane, Dewey, Coffin, Horatio Walker, and others.
Among those w'ho favor the so-called impressionistic view
are Weir, Twachtman, and Eobinson, J three landscape-
painters of undeniable power. In marines Gedney Bunce
has portrayed many Venetian scenes of charming color-tone,
and De Haas g has long been known as a sea-painter of some
* Died 1894. t Died 1S97. ,' Died i39C. ^> Died 1895.
18
274
HISTORY OF PAINTING.
power, ftuartley, who . died young, was brilliant in color
and broadly realistic. The present marine-painters are
Maynard, Snell, Rehn, Butler, Chapman.
Fin. no. — CliASE.
PRINCIPAL WORKS : The works of the early American painters are to
be seen principally in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Athenceum,
Boston Mus., Mass. Hist. Soc, Harvard College, Redwood Library, New-
port, Metropolitan Mus., Lenox and Hist. Soc. Libraries, the City Hall,
Century Club, Chamber of Commerce, National Acad, of Design, N. Y.
In New Haven, at Yale School of Fine Arts, in Philadelphia at Penna.
Acad, of Fine Arts, in Rochester Powers's Art Gal., in Washington Cor-
coran Gal. and the Capitol.
AMKRtCAN TATNTINC. 275
The works of ihc younger men are seen in tlu- cx!iil)ilions held from ycnr
lo year at the Academy of Design, the Society of American Arlisls, N. \ .,
in I'hiladelphia, Cliicago, lioston, and elsewhere tlirougbouL tlie country.
Some of their works belong to jiermanent institutions like the Metropoli-
tan Mus., the Pennsylvania Acad., the Art Institute of Chicago, Imi there
is no public collection of pictures that represents American art as a wlmlc.
Mr. T. B. Clarke, of New York, had perhaps p.l- comi'lete a collection of
paintings by contemporary American artists as anyone.
POSTSCRIPT.
SCATTERING SCHOOLS AND INFLUENCES IN ART.
In this brief history of painting it has been necessary to
omit some countries and some painters that have not
seemed to be directly connected with the progress or de-
velopment of painting in the western world. The arts of
China and Japan, while well worthy of careful chronicling,
are somewhat removed from the arts of the other nations
and from our study. Moreover, they are so positively dec-
orative that they should be treated under the head of Dec-
oration, though it is not to be denied that they are also real-
istically expressive. Portugal has had some history in the
art of painting, but it is slight and so bound up with Spanish
and Flemish influences that its men do not stand out as a
distinct school. This is true in measure of Russian paint-
ing. The early influences with it were Byzantine through the
Greek Church. In late years what has been produced
favors the Parisian or German schools.
In Denmark and Scandinavia there has recently come to
the front a remarkable school of high-light painters, based
on Parisian methods, that threatens to outrival Paris itself,
1 he work of such men as Kroyer, Zorn, Petersen, Liljefors,
Thaulow, Bjdrck, Thegerstrbm, is as startling in its realism
as it is brilliant in its color. The pictures in the Scandina-
vian section of the Paris E.xposition of i 889 were a revela-
tion of new strength from the North, and this has been
somewhat increased by the Scandinavian pictures at the
World's Fair in 1893. It is impossible to predict what will
rosTSCKii'T. 277
1)0 the outcome of this norlliLTii art, nor what will iic the
result of the recent movement here in America, All that
can be said is that the tide seems to be settin;; westward
and northward, though Paris has been the centre of art for
many years, and will doubtless continue to be the centre
for many years to come
INDEX.
Abbatf, Niccold dell', 134.
Abbey, l\lwin A.. 271.
Aclst, Willcni \'.in, 219.
Aetion, 30.
Agatharchos. 27.
Ainie-Morot, Nicolas, 167.
Albani, Francesco, 126, 131.
Albertinelli, Mariollo. 90, 97.
Alcmannus, Johannes (da Miirano),
79. S4.
Aldegrever, Heinricb, 231.
Alexander. Jobn, 262.
Alexander, J. W. , 272.
Aligny, Claude Franrois, 149.
Allegri, Pomponio, 108, 109.
Allori, Cristofano, 127, 131.
AUston, Washington, 263.
Alma-Tadema, Laurenz, 199, 202.
Altdorfer, Albrecht, 231, 239.
Alvarez, Don Luis, 184.
Aman-Jean, E., 165.
Andrea da Firen/.e, 52, 56.
Angelico, Fra Giovanni, 54, 55, 56,
65, 67.
Anselmi, Michelangelo, 108, 109.
Antiochus Gabinius, 35.
Antonio Veneziano, 52, 56.
Apelles, 30.
Apollodorus, 27, 28.
Aranda, Luis Jiminez, 185.
Aretino, Spinello, 53, 56.
Aristides, 29.
Artz, D. A. C. , 220.
Aubert, Ernest Jean, 155.
Backkr, Jacob, 210.
Backhuisen, Ludolf, 218, 222.
Bagnacavallo, Bartolomnieo Kanicn-
ghi, 105, 109.
Baker, George A. , 266,
Baldovinetti, Alessiu, 63, 71.
Baldung, Hans, 230, 239.
Bargue, Charles, 167.
Baroccio, Federigo, 125, 130.
Bartolo, Taddco di. 54, 56.
Bartolommeo, Fra (Baccio dcila Por-
ta), 90, 92, 95, 97.
Basaiti, Marco, 83, 85.
Bassano, Francesco, 119-121.
Bassano, Jacopo, 119-121.
Bastert, N. , 221.
Bastien-Lepage, Jules, 166.
I Baudry, Paul, 163.
I Bcccafumi, Domenico, 103, 108.
Bccerra, Caspar, 177, 1S5.
Beekwith, J. Carroll, 270.
; Bccehey, Sir Wilh'am, 246.
I Beham, Barthel, 231.
Reham, Sebald, 231.
Bellini, Gentile, 81, 85, 94.
Bellini, Giovanni, 74, 77, Si, 82, 83,
85, 112-115, 214, 229
Bellini, Jacopo, 79, 81, 85.
Beltraffio, Giovanni Antonio, 102.
Benjamin- Constant, Jean Joseph,
165.
Benson, Frank W. , 270.
Beraud, Jean, 170.
Berchem, Claas Pietersz, 217, 222.
280
INDEX.
Berne-Bellecour, Etienne Prosper,
167.
Berrettini, Pietro (il Cortona), 127,
131-
Berruguete, Alonzo, 176, 185.
Bertin, Jean Victor, 149, 157.
Besnard, Paul Albert, 170.
Bierstadt, Albert, 265.
Billet, Pierre, 161.
Bink, Jakob, 231.
Bissolo, Pier Francesco, 83, 85.
Bjorck, U , 276.
Blake, William, 247, 254.
Blashfield, Edwin H. , 270.
Blommers, B. J., 220.
Blum, Robert, 270.
Bocklin, Arnold, 238, 240.
Bol, Ferdinand, 210, 221.
Boldini, Giuseppe, 130, 131.
Bonfiglio, Benedetto, 66, 67, 72.
Bonheur, Auguste, 160.
Bonheur, Rosa, 160.
Bonifazio I. (Veronese), 119-121.
Bonifazio II., 119-121.
Bonifazio III. (il Veneziano), 119-121.
Bonington, Richard Parkes, 157, 252.
Bonnat, Leon, 164.
Bonsignori, Francesco. 76, 84.
Bonvin, Frant^ois, 168.
Bordone, Paris, 119, 121.
Borgognone, Ambrogio, 71, 72.
Bosboom, J., 220.
Bosch, Hieronymus, 205. 221.
Both, Jan, 217, 222.
Botticelli, Sandro, 61, 63, 71.
Boucher, Frani;ois, 141, 145. 146-
Boudin, Eugene. 171.
Boughton, George H., 258.
Bouguereau, W. Adolphe, 162, 163.
Boulanger, Hippolytc, 200.
Boulangcr, Louis, 153.
Bourdichon, Jean, 133.
Bourdon, Sebastien, 138.
Bouts, Dierich, 190, 191, 201, 205.
Bradford, William, 265.
Breton, Jules Adolphe, 161.
Breughel, 193, 201.
Bridgman, Frederick A., 272.
Bril, Paul, 193, 201, 214, 222.
Bristol, John B. , 26$.
Bronzino (Agnolodi Cosimo), il, 124,
131-
Brouwer, Adriaan, 198, 202.
Brown, Ford Madox, 257.
Brown, John Lewis, 170
Brush, George D. F. , 270.
Bugiardini, Giuliano di Piero,9i, 97.
Bunce, W. Gedncy, 273.
Burkmair, Hans, 232, 233, 239,
Burne-Jones, Sir Edward, 257.
Butler, Howard Russell, 274.
Cabanel, Alexandre, 162, 163.
Caillebotte, 170.
Calderon, Philip Hermogenes, 258.
Callcott, Sir Augustus Wall, 251.
Calvaert, Denis, 192.
Campin, Robert, 189. [131-
Canaletto (Antonio Canale), il, 129,
Cano, Alonzo, 181, 185.
Caracci, Agostino, 125-127, 130.
I Caracci, Annibale, 125-127, 130, 182,
Caracci, Ludovico, 125-127, 130.
Caravaggio, Michelangelo Amerighi
da, 127, 128, 131, 136, 181, 182.
Carolus - Duran, Charles Auguste
Emii, 164.
Caroto, Giovanni Francisco, 76, 84,
120, 121.
Carpaccio, Vittorc, yj, 82, 83, 85.
Carriere, E. , 165.
Carstens, Asmus Jacob, 236.
Cassatt, Mary, 170.
Castagno, Andrea del, 63, 71, 176.
Castro. Juan Sanchez de, 180, 185.
Catena, Vincenzo di Biagio, 83, 85.
Cattermole, George, 254.
Cavazzola, Paolo (Moranda), 120,
121.
Cazin, Jean Charles, 159.
Cespedes, Pablo de, 180, 185.
Champaigne, Philip de, 139.
INDEX.
281
('!i;inipiiinrtin, Callande dc. 153.
t'hapman, Carlton l', , 274.
L'hardin, Jean Haptistc ^?inifon, 142.
Cliase, William M., 269.
C'hintrouil, Antoinc, 159.
CliurL-h. Kicdt-nck Iv , 264.
(.'mia da L'oiu'gliaiio. (.Jiuv. Hattis-
ta. S2, S5.
(, ■iinaluio. tSiovaiini, 51, 54, 5(5.
i,la\s, Taul Jean. 200, 202.
Clouet, Fraiivois, 134.
Clouet, Jean, 134.
Cocxie, Michiel van, 192, 201.
CucUo, Claudio, 179, 185.
Coffin, William A., 273.
Cognict, Li,on, 153.
Cole, Vicat, 258.
Cole, Thomas, 264.
<,oleman, C. C, 272.
Colman, Samuel, 273.
Constable, John, 157, 216, 251-253,
259-
Copley, John Singleton, 261, 264.
Coques, Gonzales, 19S, 202.
Cormon, Fernand, 165.
Cornelis \'an Haarlem, 206, 221.
Cornelius, Peter von, 130,236, 237,239.
Corot, Jean Baptiste Camilla, 157,
159, 221.
Correggio (Antonio Allegri). il, loi,
105-109, no, 124, 125, 177, 180,
245, 249.
Cossa, Francesco, 69, 72.
Costa. Lorenzo, 69. 72, 104, 107.
Cotman, John Sell, 251.
Cottet, 168.
Courbet, G., 162, 165, 166, 199, 219.
Cousin, Jean, 134, 135.
Couture, Thomas, 155, 266.
Cozens, John Robert, 254.
Cox, David, 254.
Cox, Kenyon, 270.
Cranach (the Elder), Lucas, 199, 234,
235. 239-
Cranach (the Younger), Lucas, 235,
239-
130, 147-152
:, 219.
Crane, K. Hruce, 273.
Crawhall, Joseph, 259.
Crayer, Kaspcr dc, 196, 201.
C'redi, Lorenzo tlj, 64, 65, 71.
Cristus, IVter, 189, 201.
Crivclli, Carlo, 80, 81, 84.
Crutn.-, John (Old Cronic), 251.
Cnjp, Aelbcrt, 217, 218, 222.
DAGNAN-BouvBKiiT^ Pascal A. J
168.
Damoye, Pierre JCmmanuel, 159.
Damophilos, 35.
Dannat, William T. , 272.
Dantan, Joseph Kdouard, 168.
Daubigny, Charles Franc^ois, 138.
David, Gheeraert, 191, 192, 201.
David, Jacques Louis
153, 156, 162, 183, 15
Dearth, Henry J., 273.
Decamps, A. G., 153.
Degas, 170.
De Haas, M. F. II., 273.
Delacroix, Ferdinand Victor K., 151,
152, 160, 162, 253, 259.
Delaroche, Hippolyte (Paul), 153.
154, 199-
Delaunay, Jules Elie, 165.
De Neuville, Alphonse Maria, 167.
De Nittis. See " Nittis."
Dcnncr, Balthasar, 236, 239.
Detaille, Jean Baptiste Edouard,
167.
Dev6ria, Eugene, 153.
Dewey, Charles Melville, 273.
Dewing, Thomas W. , 270.
Dewint, Peter, 254.
Diana, Benedetto, 84, 85.
Diaz de la r*ena, Narcisu Virgilio,
158.
Diepenbccck, Abraham van, 196,
201.
Dionysius, 35.
Dolci, Carlo, 126, 131, 182.
Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri),
126, 130.
Domingo, J., 185.
282
INDEX.
Dossi, Dosso (Giovanni di I.utcro),
104, 107, 108.
Dou, Gerard, 210, 221.
Doughty, Thomas, 264.
iJu Breuil, Toussaint, 134.
iJuccio di Buoninsegna, 53, 56, 65.
iJuez, Ernest Ange, 168.
I)u Jardin, Karcl, 217, 222.
Dupre, Juhen, 166.
Dupre, Jules, 158.
Durand, Asher Brown, 264.
Diirer, Albrecht, 205, 229-235, 239.
Eastlake, Sir Charles, 247.
I'eckhout, Gerbrand van den, 210,
221.
IClliott, Charles Loring, 265.
Elzheimer, Adani, 235, 239.
Engelbrechsten, Cornclis, 205.
Etty, William, 247.
Euphranor, 29.
Eupompos, 28.
Everdingen, Allart van, 215, 222.
Eyck, Hubert van, 188, 201.
Eyck, jan van, 84, 174, 188-190, 193,
201, 204, 205.
Fabius Pictor, 35.
Fabriano, Gentile da, 54, 55, 56, 66,
74. 7S' 19' 8i-
Fabritius, Karel, 210, 213, 221.
Faed, Thomas, 258.
Fantin-Latour, Henri, i63.
P^avretto, Giacomo, 730, 131.
Ferrara, Gaudenzio, 102, 108.
I'ielding, Anthony V. I). Copley, 254.
l*"ilippino. See Lippi.
l-"iore, Jacobello del, 79, 84.
Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, 66, 72.
Flandrin, Jean Hippolyte, 154.
Flinck, Govaert, 210, 221.
Floris, Franz, 192, 201.
Foppa, Vincenzo, 71, 72, 101.
Forain, J. L., 170.
Forbes, Stanhope, 258.
Furtuny, Mariano, 130, 183-185.
Fouquet, Jean, 133.
Fragonard, Jean Honore, 141.
I'>ani;ais, P'ranc^ois Louis, 159.
]-'rancesca, Piero della, 66, 72, 75.
Francia, Francesco {Raibolinij, 69,
72, 105, 107.
Franciabigio (Francesco di Cristo-
fano Bigi), 92, 97.
Francken, 192.
Fredi, Bartolo di, 54, 56,
Fr^minet, Martin, 135.
Frere, T., 154.
Friant, Emile, 168.
Fromentin, E., 154.
Fuller, George, 266.
Fyt, Jan, 196, 201.
G ADDi, Agnolo, 52, 56.
Gaddi, Taddeo, 52, 56.
Gainsborough, T., 245-247, 259.
Gallait, Louis, 199.
Garofolo (Bcnvenuto Tisi), il, 104,
107, 109.
Gay, Edward, 273.
Gay, Walter, 272.
Geldorp, Gortzius, 192.
Gfi:rard, Baron Fran(;ois Pascal, 148.
Giricault, Jean Louis, A. T. , 151.
G^^rome, Jean Leon, 155, 162, 163,
167, 184.
Gervex, Henri, 168.
Ghirlandajo, Domcnico, 6^,, 64, 71,
92, 176.
Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo, 91, 97.
Giampictrino (Giovanni Pcdrini),
102, 108.
Gifford, Sandford, 265.
Gifford, R. Swain, 273.
Giorgione (Giorgio BarbarcUi), il,
83, 94, 112-121, 128.
Giordano, Luca, 128, 131, 183.
Giotto di Bondone, 49, 50. 52, 54, 55,
56. 73-
Giottino (Tommaso di Stefano), 52.
56-
indf:x.
283
Giovanni da Milano, 52, <,6.
Giovanni da Uilinr, 1)7. ijS
Ciiroilot dc Koussy, :\nni' I.ouis. 148.
Girtin, Thomas, 2~,4.
Giulio (Pippi), Romano, 90, 08, 120,
1 30.
(iK'vrc. Marc Cliark's (.iahrirl, 154.
Gof^, liuL;n van dcr, 190, 201.
tiorgasos, 35.
Goya y lauicnlos, Francisco. 1S3,
Go\fn. Jan win, 214, 21S, 222,
Go/-/oli, Ik'nozzo, 03, 03, 71.
Gianacci, Francesco, 91, 97.
Grandi, Frcolc di Giulio, 09, 72.
Greuzo. Joan Haptislc, 142.
Gros. Haron Antome Jean, 149, 151,
Griinewakl. Mattliias, 234.
Guardi, Francesco, 129, 131.
Guercino ((mov. Fran. Barliicra), il,
126, 131.
Guerin. Pierre Nareisse, 14S.
Gaido Reni, 126, 130, 136.
Guide da Sienna, 53, 56.
Guthrie, James, 259.
Hals, Franz (ihe Younger), 207,
21 I, 212, 221.
Hamilton, James. 259.
Hamilton, McLure, 270.
Hamon, Jean Louis, 155.
Harding, Chester, 265.
Harpignies, Henri, 159.
Hassam, Childe, 270.
Harrison, T. Alexander, 272.
Healy. George P. A., 266. [164.
Hubert, Antoine Auguste Ernest,
Heem, Jan van, 218.
Heemskerck, Marten van, 206, 221.
Heist, Bartholomeus van der, 210,
Henner, Jean Jacques, 164. [221.
Henry, George, 259.
Herkomer, Hubert, 258.
Herrera, Francisco de, 177, 180, 185.
Heyden, Jan van der, 218, 222.
Hicks, ThninMs, 266.
Hill, 'llunnas. 265.
Hitchcock, Georj^^e, 272. [251.
Hobhcina, Mcnnlrrt, 215, 216, 222,
Hogarth, William, 243, 244.
Holbein (the Fhler), Hans, 233, 239.
Flolbcin (the N't)unger), Hans, 134,
229-234, 239, 2^3.
Holl, Frank. 258.
Homer, Winslow, 26S.
Hondccoeter, Melchior d', 219, 222.
Hooglie, Picter de, kx, 213, 221.
Hook, James Clarke, 259.
Hoppner, John, 246.
HorneU, E. A., 259.
Hubbard, Richard W., 265.
Huct, Paul, 159.
Hunt. Holnian, 255, 256.
Hunt, William Henry, 254.
Hunt, Wilham Morris, 266.
Huntington, Daniel, 266.
Huysum, Jan van, 219-222.
Imola, Innocenza da (Francucci),
97. 98- 105,
Ingres, Jean Augusta Dominique,
148, 152-154, i6t, 162.
Inman, Henry, 265.
Inness, George, 273.
Israels, Jozel, 2ig, 220.
jACtjUK, Charles, 159. [196, 201,
Janssens van Nuyssen, Abraham,
Jarvis, John Wesley, 263.
Joannes, Juan de, 182, 1S5.
Johnson, David, 265.
Johnson, Eastman, 268.
Jongkind, 221.
Jordaens. Jacob, 196.
Justus van Ghent, 190, 201.
Kalf, Willem, 219.
Kauffman, Angelica, 236, 239.
Kaulbach. Wilhehn von, 237, 239.
Kendall, Sergeant, 272.
Kensett, John F., 264.
Kever, J. S. H., 221.
Keyser, Tliomas de, 207, 221.
284
INDEX.
Klinger, Max, 23S.
Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 243.
Koninck, Philip de, 210, 22
Kroyer, Peter S., 276.
Kuehl, G., 238.
Kulmbach, Hans von, 230,
Kunz, 227, 239.
^19-
La Farge, John, 268.
Lancret, Nicolas, 141.
Landseer, Sir Edwin Henry, 249.
Larg;illiere, Nicolas, 139.
Lastman, Pieter, 207.
Laurens, Jean Paul, 165.
Lavery, John, 259.
Lawrence, Sir Thon:ias, 247.
Lawson, Cecil Gordon, 258.
Lawson, John, 259.
Lebrun, Charles, 138, 139. [^^e-, 149.
Lebrun, Marie Elizabeth Louise Vi-
Lefebvre, Jules Joseph, 164.
Legros, Alphonse, 161.
Leibl, Wilhelm, 238, 240.
Leighton, Sir Frederick, 258.
Leloir, Alexandre Louis, 167.
Lely, Sir Peter, 243
Lenbach, Franz, 238, 239.
Leonardo da Vinci, 64, 66, 71, 90,
92. 95p 99-103. 107. 108, 134.
LeroIIe, Henri, 161.
Leslie, Robert Charles, 264.
Lessing, Karl Friedrich, 266.
Le Sueur, Eustache, 138.
Lethierc, Guillnume Guillon, 148.
Leutze, Emanuel, 266.
Lewis, John Frederick, 254.
Leyden, Lucas van, 205, 221. [202.
Leys, Baron Jean Auguste Henri, 199,
L'hermitte, Leon Augustin, 166.
Liberale da Verona, 76, 84, 120.
Libri, Girolamo dai, 120, 121.
Liebermann, Max, 238.
Liljefors, Bruno, 276.
Lippi, Era Filippo, 63, 71, 74.
Lippi, Filippino, 63, 71.
Lockwood, Wilton, 270.
Lombard, Lan:ibert, 192.
Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 49, 50, 54, 55,
Lorenzetti, Pietro, 54, 56, 65.
Lorrain, Claude (Gellee), 136, i<^n,
217, 250, 251, 253
Lotto, Lorenzo, 118, 121.
Low, Will H., 270.
Luini. Bernardino, loi, 108.
Mabuse, Jan (Gossart) van, 192
201, 206, 243.
McBride, A., 259.
McEntee, Jervis, 265.
McEwen, Walter, 272.
Madrazo, Raimundo de, 184, 185.
Maes, Nicolaas, 210, 221.
Makart, Hans, 238, 240.
Manet, Edouard, 168, 169, 170.
Mansueti, Giovanni, 84, 85.
Mantegna, Andrea, 6r, 74, 76, 77,
81, 84, 107, 229, 234.
Maratta, Carlo, 127, 131.
Marconi, Rocco, 118, 119, 121.
Marilhat, P., 154.
Maris, James, 220.
Maris, Matthew, 220.
Maris, Willem, 221.
Martin, Henri, 168.
Martin, Homer, 273.
Martino, Simone di, 54, 56. [93, 95,
Masaccio, Tommaso, 54, 61, 71, 92
Masolino, Tommaso Fini, 61, 71.
Massys, Quentin, 191, 192, 201, 234
Master of the Lyversberg Passion
227.
Mauve, Anton, 221. [i79i 185,
Mazo, Juan Bautista Martinez del,
Mazzolino, Ludovico, 105, 109.
Maynard, George W,, 274.
Meer of Delft, Jan van der, 213, 221.
Meire, Gerard van der, 190, 201. [184,
Meissonier, Jean Louis Ernest, 167,
Meister, Stephen (Lochner) , 225.
Meister, Wilhelm, 222.
Melchers, Gari, 272.
Melozzo da Forli, 67, 72.
Melville, Arthur, 259.
Memling, Hans, 190, 201.
TNIIKX.
285
Mcninii, Lippo, 54, 56.
Menps, Riiphael, 236, 239.
Mouzel, Ailolt", 238, 239.
Mesdag, Hendrik Willem, 221,
Messina, Antonello d;\, 83, 84, 85.
102, 113,
Metcair, WiUard l... 270.
Metrotiorus, ^^.
Melsu, (labriel, 167, 2u, 221.
Mettliiii^. V. Louis, lOS.
Michael Angoio (Buonarroti), 62,
go, 92, 97, 99, 112, 116, 122, 123-
126, 144, 176, iSi. 192, 206.
Michallon, Achille Etna, 149.
Miclu'I. Georges, 159.
Mielietti, Francesco Paolo, 130, 131,
Mierevc'it, Michiel Jansz, 206, 221.
Mieris. Franz \'an, 211, 221.
Mignard, Pierre, 139,
Millais, Sir John. 255, 256, 257.
Millet, Francis D., 270.
Millet, Jean P>an(;ols, 160-162, 165,
166, 219, 266.
Miranda, Juan Carrefio de, 179,
1S5.
Molyn (tlie Elder). Pieter de, 215,
Monet. Claude, 170, 171.
Montagna. Bartolonimeo. 77, 84.
NTontenard, Frederic, 171.
Moore, Albert, 258.
Moore, Henry, 259.
Morales, Luis de, 177, 185.
Moran, Thomas. 265.
Nforelli, Domenico, 130, 131.
Moretto (Alessandro Buonvicino) il,
120, 121,
.^[orland, George, 248.
Moro, Antonio, 177, 192, 201, 243.
Moroni, Giovanni Battista, 120, 121.
Morton, Thomas, 259.
Mostert, Jan, 191, 201, 205.
Mount, William S., 266.
MouV>ray, H. Siddons, 270.
Mulready, William, 249.
Munkacsy, Mihaly, 23S, 240.
Murillo, Bartt)Iom6 Ivstchan, 173,
180-182, 185.
Murphy, J. I'Vancis, 273.
NavAKKTIK, Ju;iii l\T[iandez, 177,
18s-
Navez, Fran(,-ois, 199, 200, 202.
Neer, Aart van der, 215, 222.
Nelli, Ottaviano, 6s, 71.
Nctscher, Kasper, 211, 221.
Neuchatel, Nicolaus, 192.
Neuhuys, Albert, 220.
Newton, Gilbert Stuart, 264.
Niccold (Alunno) da Foligno, 65,
66, 72
Nicol, Erskine, 258.
Nikias, 29.
Nikomachus, 29.
Nittis. Giuseppe de, 130, 131.
Nono, Luigi, 130.
Noort. Adam van, 195, 196, 201.
Oggiono, Marco da, 102, 108.
Opie, John, 246.
Orcagna (Andrea di Clone), 52, $6.
Orchardson, William Quillcr, 258.
Orley, Barent van, 192.
Ostadc. Adriaan \-an, 2TT, 212, 22T.
Ouwater, Aalbcrt van, 204.
Overbeck, Johann FricdrJch, 130,
236, 239.
PACCHIA, Girolnmo della, 103, toS.
Pacchiarotta, Giacomo, 103. 108,
Pacheco, Francisco, 178, 180, 185.
Pacuvius, 35.
Padovanino (Ales. Varotari), il, 128,
131-
Page, William, 266.
Palma (il Vecchio). Jacopo, 118, 119,
121.
Palma (il Giovine). jacopo, 128, 131.
Palmaroli, Vincente. 184.
Parmigianino (Francesco Mazzola),
11. 108, 109, 135.
Pamphilos, 28.
286
INDEX.
Panetti, Domenico, 104.
Paolino (Fra) da Pistoja, 90, 97.
Parrhasios, 28.
Parsons, Alfred, 259.
Pater, Jean Baptiste Joseph, 141.
Paterson, James, 259.
Patinir, Joachim, 191.
Pausias, 28.
Peale, Charles Wilson, 261.
Peale, Rembrandt, 263.
Pearce, Charles Sprague. 272.
Pelouse, Leon Germaine, 159.
Pencz, Georg, 231.
Penni, Giovanni Francesco, 96, 98.
Pereal, Jean, 133.
Perino del Vaga, 94, 97, 98, 180.
Perugino, Pietro (Vanucci), 64, 67,
69, 70, 72, 95.
Peruzzi, Baldassare, 103, 108.
Petersen, Eilif, 276.
Piero di Cosimo, 65, 71.
Piloty, CarlTheodor von, 237, 239.
Pinturricchio, Bernardino, 68, 70, 72.
Piombo, Sebastiano del, 94, 98, 182.
Pisano, Vittore (Pisanello), 73, 75,
79. 84.
Pissarro, Camille, 170.
Pizzolo, Niccolo, 75, 84.
Piatt, Charles A., 273.
Plydenwurff, Wilhelm, 22S.
Poggenbeek, George, 221.
Pointelin, 159.
PoUajuolo, Antonio del, 63, 71.
Polygnotus. 26. [124.
Pontormo, Jacopo(Carrucci), 92, 97,
Poorter, Willem de, 210, 221.
Pordenone, Giovanni Ant., 119, 121.
Potter, Paul, 216, 222.
Pourbus, Peeter, 192, 201.
Poussin. Gaspard (Dughet), 136.
Poussin, Nicolas, 126, 136, 137, 150,
251.
Pradilla, Francisco, 184.
Previtali, Andrea, 83, 85.
Primaticcio, Francesco, 97, 98, 134.
Protogenes, 30.
Prout, Samuel, 254.
Prudhon, Pierre Paul, 147.
Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre, 164.
QuARTLEY, Arthur, 274.
Raeeurn, Sir Henry, 246.
Raffaelli, Jean Franc^ois, 170.
Raphael Sanzio, 62, 67, 90, 94, 98,
99, 103, 124, 125, 149, 182, 192,206,
255-
Ravesteyn, Jan van, 207, 221.
Regnault, Henri, 165.
Regnault, Jean Baptiste, 147, 148.
Rehn, F. K. M., 274.
Reid, Robert, 270.
Reid-Murray, J., 259.
Reinhart, Charles S., 270.
Rembrandt van Ryn, 148, ig6, 204,
207-213, 221, 249.
Rene of Anjou, 133.
Renoir, 170.
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 212, 244-247.
Ribalta, Francisco de, 182, 185.
Ribera, Roman, 185.
Ribera (Lo Spagnoletto), Jose di,
128, 168, 178, 182, 183, 185.
Ribot, Augustin Theodule, 168.
Richards, William T., 265,
Rico, Martin, 185.
Rigaud, Hyacinthe, 139,
Rincon, Antonio, 176, 185.
Robert-Fleury, Joseph Nicolas, 153.
Robie, Jean, 200.
Robinson, Theodore, 273.
Roche, Alex., 259.
Rochegrosse, Georges, 165.
Roelas, Juan de las, 180, 181, 185.
Roll, Alfred Philippe, 170.
Romanino, Girolamo Bresciano, 120,
121.
Rombouts, Theodoor, 196, 201.
Romney, George, 246.
Rondinelli, Niccolo, 84, 85.
Rosa, Salvator, 128, 131.
Kosselli, Cosimo, 63, 71, 90.
INDKX.
287
I^ossetti, Gabriel Cbavlos Danti.', 255.
^5f>. 257.
Rosso, il, 134.
Koltfiihammcr, Johnnn, 235, 2>i.
Rousseau, Theotlori', 15S, 100, 162.
Ro\ lu'l, l-'ordinaiui, lOS.
RuluMis, V'rlvv I'aiil, 135. 171), 193-
201, J 10, 243.
RuisdaL-l, JaL\ih \an, 215, 216, 222.
RmsiLu-1, Si,>lomou \an, 215, 222.
R\der. Albert, 20S.
Sapbatini {Andrea da Salerno), 97,
9S.
St. Jan, Geertjen van, 205.
Salaino (Andrea Sala), il, loi, loS.
Salviati, Francesco Rossi, 124, 130,
Sanchez-Coello, Alonzo, 177, 185.
Santi, Gio\"anni, 67, 72.
Sanzio. See " Raphael."
Sargent, John S., 269, 270.
Sarto, Andrea (Angeli) del, 91, 97,
loi, 105, 134.
Sassoferrato (Giov. Battista Salvi),
il, 126. 131.
Savoldo, Giovanni Girolamo, 120,
121.
Scliadow, Friedn'ch Wilhelm von,
236, 237, 239.
Schaffner, Martin, 231, 239.
Schalcken, Godfried, 211, 221.
Schanfelin, Hans Lconhardt. 230,
239.
Scheffer, Ary, 153.
Schiingauer, Martin, 231, 232, 233,
239-
Schnorr von Karolsfeld, J., 237, 239^
Schuchlin, Hans, 231.
Score!, Jan van, 192, 206, 221.
Segantini, Giovanni, 130.
Semitecolo, Niccolo, 79, 84.
Serapion, 35.
Sesto, Cesare da, 102, 108.
Shannon, J. J., 272.
Shirlaw, Walter, 270.
Shurtleff, Roswell M., 273,
Sigaluii, Xavier, 153.
Signurclli, l.uca, 66, 67, 72, 93.
Simmons, l''.d\\ar(l I'".., 270.
SimoiU'tti, 130.
Sisley, Alfred, 171.
Smedlcy. William '1'., 270.
Sniibert, Julin, 261.
Snell, Henry 11, 274.
Snyders, l'"raiiz, 196, 201.
Sodonia (Giov. Ant. iiazzi), il, 103
108.
Solario, Andrea (da Milano), 102,
108.
Sopolis, 35.
SoroUa, Joaquin, 185.
Spagna, Lo (Giovanni di Pietro), 69,
72.
Spence, Harry, 259.
Spranger, Bartholomeus, 192.
Squarcione, Francesco, 73, 74, 75, 81.
Stamina, Gherardo, 54, 56.
Steele, Edward, 246.
Steen, Jan, 211, 212, 249.
Steenwyck, Hendrik van, 206, 221,
Stevens, Alfred, 200, 202.
Stewart, Julius L. , 272.
Strigel, Bernartl, 232, 239.
Stothard, Thomas, 254.
Stott of Oldham, 258.
Stuart, Gilbert, 262, 263.
Stuck, Franz, 238.
Sully, Thomas, 263, 264.
Swanenburch, Jakob Isaaks van, 207.
Tarbkll, Edmund C., 270.
Teniers (the Younger), David, 197,
202.
Terburg, Gerard, 167, 212, 221.
Thaulow, Fritz, 276.
Thayer, Abbott H., 270,
Thegerstrom, R. , 276.
Theodorich of Prague, 227, 239.
Theotocopuli, Domenico, 177, 185.
Thoma, Hans, 238.
Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista, 128, 131.
Tiepolo, Giovanni Domenico, 129,
131-
288
INDEX.
Timanthes, 28.
Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti), il, 115-
117, 121, 123, 128.
Titian (Tiziano Vecelli), loi, 113-
121, 124, 125, 128, 177, 179, 194,
196, 212, 245.
Tito, Ettore, 130.
Torbido, Francisco (il Moro), 120,
121.
Toulmouche, Auguste, 167.
Tristan, Luis, 177, 17B, 185.
Troyon, Constant, 159, 160.
Trumbull, John, 262, 265.
Tryon, Dwight \V. , 273.
Tura, Cosimo, 69, 72, 75.
Turner, C. Y., 270.
Turner, Joseph Mallord William,
251, 253, 254.
Twachtman, John H., 273.
UccELLO, Paolo, 63, 71, 74.
Uhde, Fritz von, 238, 240.
(Jlrich, Charles F., 272.
VaENIUS, Otho, 19s, 2QI.
Van Beers, Jan, 200, 202.
Vanderlyn, John, 263.
Van Dyck, Sir Anthony, 181, 195,
198, 201, 243, 244.
Van Dyck, Philip, 219, 222.
Van Loo, Jean Baptiste, 141, 145,
146.
Van Marcke, Emil, 159.
Vargas, Luis de, 180, 185.
Vasari, Giorgio, 124, 130
Vedder. Elihu, 268.
Veit, Philipp, 236, 239.
Velasquez, Diego Rodriguez de
Silva y, 173, 174. 177-185, 194,
196, 207, 212, 249, 271.
Velde, Adrien van de, 216, 222.
Velde (the Elder), Willem van de,
218, 222.
Velde (the Younger), Willem van
de, 218, 222.
Venusti. Marcello, 94, 98.
Verboeckhoven, Eugene Joseph,
200, 202.
Verhagen, Pierre Joseph, 198, 202.
Vernet. Claude Joseph, 142, 250.
Vernet, Emile Jean Horace, 149.
Veronese, Paolo (Caliari), 116-121,
129, 136, 194.
Verrocchio, Andrea del, 64, 71, 99.
Vibert, Jehan Georges, 167.
Victoors, Jan, 210, 221.
Vien, Joseph Marie, 146.
Villegas, Jose, 184, 185.
Vincent, Francois Andre, 147.
Vinci. See " Leonardo."
Vinton, F. P., 270.
Viti, Tinioteo di, 97, gS.
Vivarini, Antonio (da Murano), 79,
84.
Vivarini, Bartolommeo (da Murano)
79, 84.
Vivarini, Luigi or Alvise, So, 85.
Vlieger, Simon de, 218, 222.
Vollon, Antoine, 168.
Volterra, Daniele (Ricciarelli) da, 94,
97.
Vos, Cornells de, 196, 201.
Vos, Marten de, 192.
Vouet, Simon, 136, 139.
Walker, Frederick, 258.
Walker, Horatio, 273.
Walton, E. A., 259,
Wappers, Baron Gustavus, 199, 202.
Watelet, Louis Etienne, 149.
Watson, John, 261.
Watteau, Antoine, 140, 141.
Watts, George Frederick, 258.
Wauters, Emile, 200.
Weeks, Edwin L., 272.
Weenix, Jan, 219, 222.
Weir, J. Alden, 270, 273.
Werff, Adriaan van der, 219, 222.
West, Benjamin, 261, 262, 264.
Weyden, Roger van der, 189, 190,
201, 231.
Whistler, James A. McNeill, 371.
INliliX.
289
\Vhittredg:e, Worthinf^ton, 265.
Wiertz, Antoiiie Joseph, 199, 202.
\\'iles, Irvinji R., 270.
Wilkie, Sir David, 249.
Willems, Ftorent, 2ch., 202.
Wilson, Richard, 250, 251.
\\'oIg^emut, Michael. 22S. 239.
W'ouverman, Philips, 216, 222.
WVi^ht, Joseph, 250.
W'urraser, Nicolaus, 227, 239.
W'yant, Alexander H., 265, 273,
Wyllie. W. L., 259.
Wynants, Jan, 215, 222.
Yon, Edmumi Charles, 159.
Zamacois, I'AkianIo, 1H4, 1H5.
Zegeis, Daniel, 196, 21. r.
Ziem, 154.
Zeitblom, Hattholoniaus, 2^1, 239.
Zeuxis, 27.
Zoppo, Maico, 75, 84.
Zurn, Anders, 276.
Zucchero, Kederigo, 125, 130.
Zuloaf^a, I^nacio, 185.
Zurbaran, Francisc<^ de, 180, iSi,
185.
A History of Architecture.
II Y
A. D. F. HAMLIN, A.M.
Aiijuni-t I'rol'e-^sdi- (^f Airliitoctiiir in llir Sclii.i.l nf Min(-s, Cnliiniliia ( 'ollej^^e.
With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations and Diagrams,
Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a General
Index. Crown 8vo, pp. xxviii-442, $2.00.
" Tlie le\t of this book is very valiuil)le because of the sirijj^ularly intelligent
\'ie\v taken of eacli separate epoch. . . . The book is extremely well fur-
nishei:! w ilh bibli^jj^^raphies, lists of monuments [which] are excellent.
If any reasonable part of the contents of this book can be pot into the heatis
of tlmse \\ ht) stuci\ it, tliey will have excellent ideas about architecture and the
be^innin^s of a sound knowledge of it." — TiiE Nation, New York.
" A manual that will be invaluable to the student, while it will give to the
{general reader a sufficiently full outline for his purposes of the development of
tlie various schools of architecture. What niakes it of special value is the
large number of ground plans of typical buildings and the sketches of bits of
detail of cc^lumns, arches, windows and doorways. Each ciiapter is prefaced
by a list of books recommended, and each ends with a list of monuments.
The illustrations are numerous and well executed."
— San Francisco Chronicle.
" Probably presents more comprehensively and at the same time concisely,
tlie various periods and st)Ies of architecture, with a characterization of the
most important works of each period and style, than any other published
work. . . . The volume fills a gap in architectural hterature \\'hich has
long existed." — Advertiser, Boston.
" A neatly published work, adapted to the use either of student or general
reader. As a text-book it is a concise and orderly setting forth of the main
principles of architecture followed by the different schools. The life history
of each period is brief yet thorough. . . . The treatment is broad and not
over-critical. The chief facts are so grouped that the student can easily grasp
them. The plan-drawings are clear-cut and serve their purpose admirably.
The half-tone illustrations are modern in selection and treatment. The style
is clear, easy and pleasing. The entire production shows a studious and orderly
mind. A new and pleasing characteristic is the absence of all discussion on
disputed points. In its unity, clearness and simplicity lie its charm and
interest." — Notre Dame Schoiastic, Notre Dame, Ind.
''This is a ver>' thorough and compendious historj' of the art of archi-
tecture from the earliest times down to the present. . . . The work is
elaborately illustrated with a great host of examples, pictures, diagrams, etc.
It is intended to be used as a school text-book, and is very conveniently
arranged for this purpose, with suitable headings in bold-faced type, and a
copious index. Teachers and students will find it a capital thing for the
purpose." — Picayune, New Orleans.
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers,
91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.
A History of Sculpture.
EV
ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph.D., L.H.D.
AND
ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., Ph.D.
Professors of Archseology and the History of Art in Princeton University.
With Frontispiece and 113 Illustrations in half-tone in the
text. Bibliographies, Addresses for Photographs and Casts, etc.
Crown 8vo, 313 pages, $1.50.
Henry W. Kent, Curator of the Seater Museum, IVtitkins, A''. V.
" Like the other works in this series of yours, it is simply invaluable,
filling a long-felt want. The bibliographies and lists will be keenly
appreciated by all who work with a class of students."
Charles H. Moore, Harvard University.
"The illustrations are especially good, avoiding the excessively
black background which produce harsh contrasts and injure the outlines
of so many half-tone prints."
J. M. HOPPIN, Yale University.
" These names are sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the
book and its fitness for the object it was designed for. I was especially
interested in the chapter on Revaissanee Sculpture in Italy."
Critic, N'ew York.
"This history is a model of condensation. . . . Each period is
treated in full, with descriptions of its general characteristics and its
individual developments under various conditions, physical, political,
religious and the like. ... A general history of sculpture has never
before been written in English — never in any language in convenient text-
book form. This publication, then, should meet with an enthusiastic recep-
tion among students and amateurs of art, not so much, however, because it
is the only book of its kind, as for its intrinsic merit and attractive form."
Outlook, New York.
" A concise survey of the history of sculpture is something needed
everywhere. ... A good feature of this book — and one which
should be imitated — is the list indicating where casts and photographs
may best be obtained. Of course such a volume is amply indexed."
Notre Dame Scholastic, Notre Dame, Ind.
"The work is orderly, the style lucid and easy. The illustrations,
numbering over a hundred, are sharply cut and well selected. Besides a
general bibliography, there is placed at the end of each period of style a
special list to which the student may refer, should he wish to pursue
more fully any particular school."
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers,
91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.
Longmans, Green, & Co.'s Publications.
AN ENCYCLOPiEDIA OF ARCHITECTURE.
By JosKLMl G\vil.[', F.S.A. Illustrated with aliout 1,700 Engrav-
ings on Wood. Revised with Alterations and Considerable
Additions, by WvAir Pai'Wokjii. Svo, 1,459 P^ges, $17.50.
Tliis work, first pulilished in 1842, has now passed through eight im-
pressions, those of 1867 and 1876 liaving received extensive revision and
many important additions at the hands of Mr. Wyatt Papworth. In this,
the ninth impression, liesides many requisite amendments and additions
throughout the pages, the chapters entitled "Materials Used in Buildings"
and ''Use ot Materials,'' which constitute a main portion of the work, have
been largely revised, parts rewritten and added to in important particulars,
especially in regard to the details of Fire-proof and Sanitary Construction,
in order to record the results of later theories and the numerous inventions
introeluced since the previous revision. The Lives of Eminent Architects
have been brought down to date ; .as are also the Publications, which have
lieen partly rearranged in additional classes ; while the Glossary of Terms
his been amended where desirable. The Inde.x has been carefully revised
to mclude all new matter.
THE STEPPING-STONE TO ARCHITECTURE:
Explaining in simple language the Principles and Progress of
Architecture from the earliest times. By Thomas Mitchell.
Illustrated by 49 Figures and 22 Plates. i8mo, 83 pages, socents.
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
A Manual for Students. By the Author of " Notes on Building
Construction." With nearly 400 Illustrations and Index.
Crown Svo, Si. 50.
GEOMETRICAL DRAWING FOR ART STUDENTS.
Embracing Plane Geometry and its Applications, the Use of
Scales, and the Plans and Elevations of Solids. With nearly
Guo Figures. By I. Ha.m.monu Mokkis. Crown Svo, iy2 pages,
60 cents.
THE TEACHING OF DRAWING.
By I. H. Morris, Art Master. With 675 Illustrations. Crown
Svo, 267 pages, $1.50.
The book contains about 700 illustrations, which have been specially
drawn for the purpose. The Freehand examples . . . may be
divided into three sections, viz.: Conventional Ornament, Plant Forms,
and Common Objects They are selected to illustrate definite principles
which the teacher may apply to other figures. Considerable space is
devoted to Scale Drawing, Model Drawing, and Solid Geometry, as these
parts of the subject require the most skillful and intelligent teaching.
Especial attention is directed to the large number of specimen lessons.
These are given chiefly with a view of affording assistance to young teachers
and those who may not have had much practical acquaintance with the
subject.
THE STORY OF MUSIC
By W. J. Henderson. Fourth Edition. i2mo, cloth, orna-
mental, li.oo.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 91 and 93 Fifth Ave., New York.